Matt Furie, the creator of Pepe the Frog, has killed him off at the age of 12. As someone who had a few belly-laughs with Pepe back in the day, I have to admit to being a little sad, though I didn't think it was WIGO material. I for one prefer to remember him how he was rather than what he became. There will be plenty of post-mortem articles written about the cartoon frog and his weird place in politics, but I'll leave that job to esteemed professionals. RIP Pepe 2005-2017 feels bad man. Hentropy (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Rumor on the cyber street has it that they're going to use another one of Furie's characters to "get back" at him for killing Pepe. Hentropy (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Feelsbadman... In all seriousness though, the best way to combat Neo-Nazis appropriating meme culture is to not pay any attention to it, as it's used to get a rise out of people. Additionally, claiming the Pepe meme has turned into a product of Nazism just sounds really out-there, even if it's true. megalodon (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth

You should look up what we already have done to them lol 2d4chanfag (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

...Specifically, ads on YouTube. Specifically, ads for a certain YouTube channel masquerading as a college. I've been getting these ads ever since some lunkhead sent me a link to one of their videos and I took the time to watch and debunk the claims presented in it. Since I didn't leave a dislike, YouTube has since decided that I "liked" it, and as such, I have been getting ads from these shysters nonstop whenever I am not on a computer that I can use UBlock Origin with. Since these ads are not selling anything, but rather spewing BS about how people disagreeing with fake statistics are rejecting reality because feelings and how recognizing Palestine is a communist plot to corrupt Israel's precious bodily fluids, is it legal (on YouTube, anyway) for them to present their propaganda as advertisements? Also, what can I do on computers that I am not allowed to use adblockers with? TheMyon (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I watched of Prager's ads once. It was all about how the wage gap is a myth and whatnot. The funniest part was it was actually completely fine and factual up until they eventually got to the inevitable "women more often work jobs that pay lower wages than men" and they just jumped all the way to the conclusion "this is all obviously a product of personal choice and there's absolutely nothing inherently flawed with 50% of the population mysteriously not wanting to work the same high-paying jobs as men". The statement "women in the US are paid less for the same jobs & time worked as men" is certainly false (at least as far as I know), but I think there's definitely an issue where social stigma pressures women into low-paying "care-taker" (such as day-care workers, and teachers) and subordinate roles, as well as away from leadership roles. I think I may have been targeted by the ad for looking up all those infamous skeptic channels. If you can't use adblock to get rid of them, I'd recommend either going on a "dislike spree" through Prager's channel, or not watching content like it. After all, ads do target users based on what they're watching and like. megalodon (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I get the same problem, I occasionally watch wingnut and moonbatty stuff on Youtube just to get a handle on what crap is floating out there. They're not so much "ads" as just your recommendations sidebar, and mine gets totally clogged with BS, Youtube somehow thinks I love both Sargon and The Young Turks and various conspiracy channels. Prager for one reason or another floods me whenever I watch one fucking video of theirs. One thing you can do is roll over the video recommendation, hit the arrow in the upper-right-hand corner, and it'll have a "Not Interested" button. It'll get the message when you do it enough. Hentropy (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The best way to "annoy the computers' algorithms" is to deliberately topic hop (and comment on the 'amusing combinations of adverts etc' that arise). 11:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My question: Is Dennis Prager in anyway related to Felix Praeger of Praeger Publishing? As a long time observer of both, there are definite similiarities to the two in tone and content, it's as if Dennis Prager has continued Praeger Publishing's work since the Church Committee exposed it. nobs 15:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand smoking is not good for you and all that plus people should be educated. That being said, "Truth" seems to be promoting a conspiracy that African Americans are being targeted by Tobacco companies and that Big Tobacco markets cigarettes next to schools with high African-American enrollment (go check out their website). As I said, smoking is bad but advocating a racial conspiracy that conveniently ignores other groups does not help the cause. Especially when racial tensions are very high. If you promote a conspiracy based on distortions and lies then I am not on board. Link- https://www.thetruth.com/Because a rotting undead corpse is probably a better choice than most politicians

The anti-smoking agitation has been a serious problem in the USA for years. Our government sponsors those hectoring "Tips from Former Smokers" ads, believing them to be a public service rather than simply lowering the bar of bad taste well beyond where anybody, much less a government, should go. Segregation, too, is OK so long as the victims are smokers. After all, if you even smell one - and they can be identified by smell - you might catch the leprosy they carry. If you endorse the anti-smoking agitation you are a party to the murder of Eric Garner. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

South Park wasn't really wrong with that episode all those years ago about the anti-smoking people, they truly do what they do caring much more about the ends than the means. It's hard to argue with the effectiveness, though, smoking really has dropped off substantially, though it's also hard to say whether television ads are the reason. I might be a little bit biased as smoking-related illness is something that had touched my friends and family more than a couple times, but if it really does stop people from doing something objectively awful to themselves for basically no good reason, I think I can overlook some shitty ad campaigns. When it comes to "conspiracy theories" I'm not really sure if it calls in that category, selectively citing actual facts is something pretty much everyone does when they're arguing persuasively. Hentropy (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Demographically targeted marketing is not a conspiracy theory, it's advertising convention. Targeted marketing of youth by Tobacco companies in the past is well documented. You're skepticism circuits are slightly overreacting. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 16:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If a company engages in fraudulent activity connected to marketing, it has been considered conspiracy. This was particularly the case for tobacco companies that had been engaging in "in a decades-long conspiracy to (1) mislead the public about the risks of smoking, (2) mislead the public about the danger of secondhand smoke; (3) misrepresent the addictiveness of nicotine, (4) manipulate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes, (5) deceptively market cigarettes characterized as “light” or “low tar,” while knowing that those cigarettes were at least as hazardous as full flavored cigarettes, (6) target the youth market; and (7) not produce safer cigarettes."[2]Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been wanting to bring them up for quite some time. While the tobacco companies still do shitty things, especially in countries that have trouble dealing with them using the law, the Truth campaign is full of shit. They use argumentum ad fastidium and chemophobia to push their agenda. One commercial showed them telling people that cigarettes have urea, saying that it's found in cat pee(it's in all mammals' urine) as well as methane, which they say is found in dog poop(again, it comes out of all mammals' asses, AND is found in natural deposits). It's fucking methane! On their website, they say that cigarettes also contain acetic acid, which is used in floor cleaner. Some of you might recognize acetic acid as also being the main ingredient in vinegar. They also shamed Florida in commercial, pointing out that if the state where Hooters began can get such a low teen smoking rate, how come others are lagging behind. The commercials often feel like a bunch of peer pressure and propaganda. I hate smoking but god are they obnoxious.Teurastaja (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The 'Truth' business is merely annoying, and like all propaganda that tries to reach for 'hip', ends up looking mildly ridiculous. (And makes their early efforts much more interesting compared to the recent material. But give it time....) But 'Truth' is only funded by extortion from tobacco companies. My real beef is with "Tips from Former Smokers", pure scare tactics that plumb the depths of bad taste. This is very simply something that no government should ever do to its citizens. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nicotine users have virtually no rate of Parkinson's disease. People who self-medicate against Parkinson's have been vilified and outcast by the supposed "healthy" population for decades simply cause the tobacco industry stopped contributing to Democrats in the 1960s when the Democrats striped cigarette makers of their First Amendment Rights to advertise on TV. nobs 14:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Even when I was very against cigs as a child, these commercials were full of shit. The one I always remembered was the fishbowl with 30 goldfish while the water slowly drained out. I felt so bad for those fish I took up heavy smoking in protest.Asaac Isimov (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Power moves such as this are traditional in failing/failed democracies. Given the "11th commandment's" sway over the republican party, it is the American people who are going to lose this exchange. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 20:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a discomforting feeling... part of me wants to be optimistic, but another part of me wants to prepare for the possibility that Trump could successfully absolve himself of crimes while the Republicans protect him for political reasons. Republican Senators don't seem thrilled that this happened but don't seem willing to do anything substantial about it. The only real hope you can have is if this snowballs, or if there's a really bad leak that can't be ignored, or at the very least that 2018 is going to be a bad time for the Republican majority. Hentropy (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You're assuming, of course, that the recently announced Presidential Commission on Election Integrity isn't going to take some very Orwellian interpretations of "integrity". Not necessarily an incorrect assumption; it's entirely possible reality could win, but at this point, I'm disinclined to trust the continued existence of the American republic. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 20:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be as alarmed about that, it's largely just red meat for his supporters. There is no national election system and the commission has no power to actually do much besides "fact-find". Chances are we'll hear nothing from this commission for over a year before they release a report telling us what we already knew. Republicans playing shutdown defense when it comes to the Russia thing because they really, really don't want to halt a legislative agenda is more concerning. Hentropy (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The Donald has annoyed the military, the FBI, and who else - and how many other 'persons or groups with leverage' can he annoy before they find a suitable means of leverage back (the ancient scientist and moving the Earth). 86.146.100.54 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt Trump or his team have the ability to establish an autocracy. From what I've seen the consensus is that Trump is somehow incompetent and capable of/trying to set himself up as a dictator at the same time. While most people seem quite happy believing this contradiction because it makes Trump look as bad as possible, I tend to solve in favor of the first part. If Trump was really a threat to democracy, none of you would see it coming. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, the fact is that the left is just taking every move he's making and trying to make it sound fascist. In order for this to be a five-alarm fire, certain lines need to be crossed. Trump has run his mouth about the media, but he's not jailing or killing them. He's running his mouth about judges, but he's abiding by them. He's doing a lot of shitty things that are completely within his authority as President (partially thanks to how much executive power has expanded under both Rs and Ds). He's done ethically dubious things, but people are just now finding out there's few actual laws against such things. If the left is just going to cry fascist every time he does anything questionable, it'll start look like crying wolf. This very well may be the strategy. Hentropy (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The only plausible scenario I can see for a Trump exit is after corporate tax cuts are passed. Until then, House and Senate Republicans will fight tooth and nail against any agency that threatens him. Leuders (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This. This...this is Nixonian. I think we can safely say Trump has become unhinged. 2018, if the Dems win, Trump needs to be kicked out. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not a matter of the "Dems winning", it's a matter of the Dems recapturing the deplorable Trump voters they lost. What is hard about understanding this? and why does the establishment Democratic party continue to go out of its way to offend what used to be their base voters? They're aren't enough voters among other demographic groups to make up for the base they have alienated. nobs 14:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

...and particularly if illegal immigration is squelched; illegal immigration is the only thing that has given the national Democratic party on edge over the past twenty years. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama owe their electoral victories to non-citizen voters. And without that, as is readily clear, the Democratic party has nothing. They hold power in eight states, out of 50. nobs 15:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We're shaken to the core by your pithy insights, our misguided allegiance to the Clintons is shattered utterly, and we share your all consuming fear of illegals. Your job here is done, nobs. Leuders (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess then that we can take it as a compliment --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is it even in video format? Why not just post a rant in some forum? Is it desperation to get views or something??? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty good, on point, direct, and informative. Why do you guys have your panties in knot if satan doesn't exist, hmmm? Lack of faith in your disblief? nobs 07:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Right wingers have this obliviousness about them where they mistake mockery for their profoundly stupid beliefs for being taken aback and insulted by said beliefs. I credit this to them being too stupid to recognize what it is they do that does insult people, but, horses mouth, why do you think you make that kinda obvious mistake, nobsy? ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 16:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

*Sips some blood from a cup*. Even that slump known as Chris Chan makes better "videos" than these pathetic cowards. Maim!Kill!Burn! 22:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I will stop the dumbass at, "RW's resource is the devil". Much of the information on the Fundie Christians is directly from their own websites and videos as well as woo schools, other religions, politics and whatever else. Example- the info on Liberty University comes from their own site for the most part. Maybe the jack ass who made the video will target individual users next? Plenty of atheists for sure, agnostics, some liberal Christians and some Pagans; don't forget that vast majority of the users are liberals and second place is centrists. That Undead Schizophrenic

Fundies are so moron that cannot see or purposefully ignore what the Bible has to say about Satan, and especially how their beloved God is the one that creates the Apocalypse (read the BotR) --Panzerfaust (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted a comment to the video and he responded --Godonaldgo1 (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely your being prompted and motivated to respond is evidence of either (a) giving some validity to the concept of Satan, or (b) holding in esteem the ideas of the poster, assuming it was a non-parody or trolling response.

Simple logic applies here: the atheist view may be represented as Satan = 0, and the believers view a Satan = 1. I don't quite understand the lack of belief or faith in the formula, Satan = 0, that one feels prompted to defend it or challenge the other formula. nobs 16:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I get immigration laws should be enforced (you have to have some sort of law, that is a given) but building a wall won't work (I know everyone knows that). It would be much cheaper to.......you know......have the immigration workers DO THEIR JOB. I am not saying, "Target Hispanics" as there are immigrants from every other nation. It would be much better and not actually racist if you investigate someone if it is suspected (that goes for any immigrant). The way things are going now, "President" Trump has other things to worry about such as being impeached and being investigated for treason. I think illegal immigration should be the last thing on Trump's mind.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The great wall of China worked for them... 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that's probably a fair rule for any non-decorative construction. Maybe tombs are also exempt. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one who actually loves Trump? Not as a president, not as a leader, but as some bizarre caricature that seemed to have come straight from a critique of our capitalist and consumerist society. He's like one of the first Presidents that actually seems to go out of his way to actively ignore reality, and as dangerous as that is, I find it sickly amusing. megalodon (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of Trump floating the idea of ending the daily press briefing and handing out written transcripts? I kinda like it. I'd go a step further: close the Press Briefing Room, sweep out the whole lot of them, and convert the space to something more useful, like a bowling alley or something. Why should we, the American people, be on the hook for our tax dollars providing work space for a snobbish, arrogent, insulting, elitist class of journalists hostile to our country, the people, its values, its government, and its institutions? If they wish to be close to the seat of power, send them to LaFayette Parkacross the street with the homeless where they belong. nobs 14:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I can kind of see your point but at the same time the President should face the American people. I do not want a President that hides.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Twitter has given him direct access no president has ever had. We've come a long way since Woodrow Wilson installed the first direct phone line to Capital Hill, although both the White House and Congress had been wired internally with phones for four decades prior.

The federal government is the last to change with technological innovation that destroys jobs; Congress still had a fulltime paid elevator operator to push buttons in 1981 when Reagen was elected (in the old days it took a mechanic to run one and to look after safety concerns entering and exiting) and the White House still had a paid fulltime movie projectionist in 1994 during the Gingrich Revolution to pop in video tapes for the president's after dinner movie enjoyment. nobs 16:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just curious but how comes the reps became for protectionism and against global market, or at least part of them. If Trump wants to be the new Reagan, wasn't him, one of the biggest proposer and enabler of an aggressive deregulation and globalization of the markets? Plus people against the alleged competition flooding from immigrants are unknowingly marxist, becase the concept is the "army of reserve", as the chain of contractual bargaining power is a strong as its weakest rings. But when that happened with residents and "native" (well, after actual natives) population, people have been more tolerant, but I might guess most of devaluation happened that way. Dunno what's funnier between pro deregulation left and the more recent anti globalist right :D.--78.15.253.193 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What's your evidence that view is a "fallacy"? (Just because you choose to call something a "fallacy" does not make it so.) To me it is an inductive argument; as to how strong or weak it is, it depends on the circumstances. But, in the abstract, the claim that ideas which are rejected by both major positions in a debate might on average be somewhat more likely to be true than ideas that lack that property is not entirely implausible. (Still, I don't think it is likely to be particularly strong, but neither as weak as weak can be; and even a relatively weak inductive argument can be valuable for its cumulative contribution.) (((Zack Martin)))™ 23:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Doing something right" is subjective. Is the goal to be an intolerable douchebag who deems themselves superior for going against the flow? If so, they're doing something right. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 03:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have mandatory abortions. Since both pro choice and pro life hate that, I must be right.

Instead of cutting carbon emissions, we should use coal to power our cars. Both sides say I'm wrong, so hooray.

...this sounds more like a deliberate parody than an actual fallacy. StickySock (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd call it active shadenfreude; there are two types of shadenfreude, passive and active. Passive is most common based on 3rd party independence and observation, but being the subject is the antagonist of others hatred, this makes it active shadenfreude. nobs 19:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobs schadenfreude has nothing to do with this. Schadenfreude is laughing at the misfortune of others, and not like the OP is describing. Barrel!Another! 21:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It is use of the subjective and emotional term 'hate', rather than an objective and neutral term like 'disagree', which takes the original premise outside of logic and places inside the field of psychology. So yes, you are correct. I'm describing a psychological condition and not a logical fallacy.

Can hatred be excused or justified by logic or reason? nobs 02:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if the OP was using neutral terms schadenfreude still has nothing to do with this. I think it's closest to an argumentum ad martyrdom, Levi. Ohmigodnobsdon'tpostCPlinkshere. If you use an encyclopaedia qua propaganda machine to argue, then I get to use... some liberal alternative. I'll find one. Don't worry. Anyway, schadenfreude is laughing when a man slips and falls or a kid drops his ice cream. It's laughing at someone else's misfortune. Not laughing because they're bringing ideas that are hated or however you meant it there.

tl;dr an argumentum ad martyrdom is an argument that something becomes true if the person asserting it is perceived to be hated for it (a variation on the Galileo gambit). Barrel!Another! 02:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

shadenfreude is literally shady joy. It is not defined as a momentary reaction or laughter. A troll can derive much shady joy by trolling, both during the act an continuing for a long time after. nobs 02:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobs I almost just spat out my drink. Schaden is not shady. Schaden (harm, damage, loss, injury, detriment or something along those lines) literally has nothing to do with 'shady'. To quote the liberally biased Wikipedia page you linked to, "Schadenfreude (/ˈʃɑːdənfrɔɪdə/; German: [ˈʃaːdn̩ˌfʁɔʏ̯də] ( listen); lit. 'harm-joy') is pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. Borrowed from German into English and several other languages, it is a feeling of joy that comes from seeing or hearing about another person's troubles or failures. It is an expression of pleasure or self-satisfaction at another's failure." Barrel!Another! 02:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Shade has several meanings. It can mean "too bad", like "I'm sorry" when consoling some one. Or "not so well" in response to the greeting, Wie gehts? only here it literally means shady, as in "fair and partly cloudy". As a response, de: shade, meaning shady, damaged, or suffering in turmoil, is one step above besheissen, or shitty, as it is often mistaken for by English speakers. nobs 03:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

IOW, if you're not feeling well and someone asks, How are you feeling? and children are present, you say, Schade; if adults only and you wanna speak the truth you say Sheissen (Shitty). nobs 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
It's an interesting word that reveals much about Germanic idioms. Germanic languages often use degrees of light, which Latin languages don't have (for example, English has dawn, morning, noon, afternoon, evening, twightlight, dusk, dark, and night; Spanish has moñana, tardes and noches, and a few other meanings not often used borrowed from other languages). Shade and shadow have related meanings. Richard Strauss' Die Frau ohne Shatten is often translated three ways in English: The Woman without Shadow, The Woman without Husband, and The Woman without Child. Now, knowing the difference between schade and shatten, tell me which title comes closest to the meaning? nobs 08:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that the word that comes closest to the title is schaden. Not schade. schaden. These are two different words. They have different meanings. Schade like you're describing, and schaden like I'm describing. Schaden has nothing to do with shady. Schadenfreude literally means harm joy, from schaden (harm) and freude (joy). ViveLiberté! 10:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ackerman
Yes there is two names for it. Trolling and shitposting. 2d4chanfag (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've attempted to bring out the hermaneutics of Schade which is shady, or lack of light; harm is neither English nor any Germanic origin, and is of Semitic origin via Greek, but it's use in Arabic is haram, or sinful (as in haram vs halal or sinful vs what is allowed). So, there are your choices in meaning: sinful joy or joy without light (perhaps cold joy because it's cooler in the shade). I think my definition is closer and more acceptable than the other, cause despite the rising popularity of the word, Germans are concerned it doesn't get confused with Sadism which has a similiar meaning, albeit more physical , sexual, and active. Whereas cold joy or shady joy is passive and humorous at best, or mischievous at worst. nobs 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, you need to prove that the root word of schaden in schadenfreude is schade. I need to see a really, hella convincing argument that the root word of schaden isn't schaden. Also, wtf does sadism have to do with this? Schadenfreude and sadism don't sound alike and, while they have related meanings, have very distinct differences in meaning. ViveLiberté! 13:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sadism is of recent origin, and is named for a person- Marquis de Sade. It has no roots in ordinary language, yet the condition it represents has always existed. Sometimes defined as getting pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Shadenfreude gained currency after WWII, at a time people were asking, What has been the German contribution to common humanity? This was one of those few bulky German words that has now made its way into other languages, but Germans live in fear it means taking joy from inflicting pain on others as a common German cultural trait even prior to WWII. It has nothing to do with harm or pain, as Sadism does. It is simply a twisted, shady delight in causing mischief or witnessing someone elses stupidity. nobs 15:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that it came from a Frenchman, I'd have to say that sadism has its roots in French (much like masochism has its roots in German, from the Austrian writer Sacher-Masoch). Also, can you clarify "Germans live in fear[sic] it means taking joy from inflicting pain on others as a common German cultural trait even prior to WWII. It has nothing to do with harm or pain..[sic]"? Look, I understand the differences between the two. The differences are blatant. But schadenfreude doesn't come from 'shady' or 'schade' or 'schatte', it comes from 'schaden'. It's pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune. ViveLiberté! 15:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Germans live in fear that their one of their recent contributions from their language will be misunderstood when it's translated the way you translated it. It has nothing to do with pleasure or harm, as Sadism has gained currency. Its simple meaning is delight and mischief. But when translated the way you translated it, it makes Germans feel like they are a nation of Sadists with sadism in their blood. For this reason, it has fallen out use in German while a distorted representation has gained currency worldwide. nobs 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is insanity nobs. Of course Germans aren't sadists. That's like saying the French all have a very cynical, almost depressed, acerbic, melancholy, dark, and terrible outlook on life all because one read La Rochefoucauld's Maxims and thought it applied to the whole. Sadism and schadenfreude are very different, but schadenfreude nonetheless still means joy in another's harm. Harm, in this case, is not the sadistic sense of the word. At the risk of violating the definition fallacy, sadism (n.) is the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others. Schadenfreude (n.) is pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune. Completely different, but schadenfreude is still harm-joy. ViveLiberté! 16:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's the simple fallacy to your argument: your introducing a Greek word (Hamartia) of Semitic and Arab origin (Haram) which basically is translated sin in translating the word shady (obscured from light) from one Germanic language to another that has the same meaning, sound, and context with slightly modified inflection and spelling. nobs 16:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

<Digression: Speaking of non-sequiters, I love the way English is built up. My favorite of alltime is sequence (sequenta), then we have the result with sequence (con-sequence). But in its English contracted form (those uneducated English hicks c.1000 C.E. had trouble with those 50 cent Latin words) we have next, which is a basically a contraction of consequence. "Next in sequence" is a redundant phrase. nobs 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)>
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Nobs Hamartia is from the Greek ἁμαρτάνειν (hamartánein) and has nothing to do with haram (arabic حَرَام‎‎ ḥarām). I legitimately will ask my German friends about this since we can't agree. Look. Let me say it once and for all. Schaden and schade are different words with different meanings, and schadenfreude comes from schaden and freude. Barrel!Another! 17:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

To sum it up, harm gave it a moral quality, which is why translators settled on misfortune. Even though it's meaning has evolved in German as it has spread worldwide, pre-1945 it could mean delight in mischief. Today it's almost universally described as passive or watching someone screw themselves. nobs 17:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I just.. I can't right now. Nobs, even if you go back to proto-Germanic and trace the root of schaden, it still means harm. Harm-joy will always mean harm-joy, not mischief-joy. See here. Barrel!Another! 17:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because a word has fallen out use doesn't mean its meaning has changed. If anything, it has been preserved, kept on ice. It's current use has been modified. These people were farmers. So shady weather would harm crops. In this sense, the harm, bad, or damage caused by schade is not directed at persons. It simply means the lack of sunlight is not good. From there it takes on a whole bunch of meanings. In English we speak of shady dealings, for example, to imply the Latin eqivalent of corruption. So the idiom has its twin in English. It shoukdn't be to hard to translate or understand. nobs 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

First, it's only used in the predicative. Second, it has no meanings related to shade. Third, farmers would have used schattig to describe shady weather. Fourth, 'shady' in the phrase 'shady dealings' refers to an informal meaning of the word that indicates something of dubious legal status. Fifth, schade is currently obsolete so.. Sixth, schade most nearly means 'pity', predicatively used in the phrase, "That's a pity!". Nobs, at the end of this, we may just have to agree to disagree. You're completely free to be wrong as much as you like, but we've gotten horribly off subject discussing schadenfreude when the topic was fallacies. ViveLiberté! 22:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It says right there top of the link: Schade, shade, shadow (schade and shadow are two different spellings of the same pronounciation, depending what part of the country your from)

Let me show how hermenuetics works. Two days ago I found a red link in WP for Ghoulioune Abdel Jelil. Ghoulioune when sounded out, sounds like Julien. The spelling looks French. When Googled, no results. However everything else looked like Mustafa Abdul Jalil. How do we get Julien out of Mustafa? Mustafa is a common title among Islamic scholars, often shortened to Mufti. A Mufti is a judge. Julien is from Julius Ceasar who reformed the judicial system that Judges exercise over. French monseignor, and its English equivalent mister - a respected elder, sounds a lot like Mustafa. It logically makes sense the Westernized translation of Mustafa is Julien. Based on this evidence, when I researched the bio particulars, it was enough of a match to create a redirect. nobs 22:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it means shadow, if you look at the English meaning of the word. Not the German meaning of the word. Nobs, that's literally the most jumble mess of 'logic' I have ever had the misfortune of laying eyes on. 'Ghoulioune' to 'Julien' to 'Mustafa' to 'Mufti' to Julius Caesar to 'monseignor' to 'mister'. That is, like, an impressive amount of non sequiters based on superficial similarities. And the funny thing is that we don't even know if it's right, because that was probably the laziest attempt at hermenuetics I've ever seen.

Now, you could have gotten lucky, or you could have just googled the head of the National Transitional Council of Libya. Either way, that is just.. that's an abomination. ViveLiberté! 23:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way, I'm right, and you're stuck in the 21st century. nobs 23:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said before, you're free to be wrong. And besides, the 21st century isn't a half-bad one to be stuck in. You should come join us. We're good at arguing and doing real hermaneutics and we don't use words wrongly to try to make our points. It's quite nice, you know. Tell me whenever you're ready to make a leap of faith and join us. ViveLiberté! 02:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why would you want to limit your perspective on the field of human knowledge to your own time and place? The whole thing breadth of it is available, you know. Ask and ye shall receive. But knowledge is nothing without understanding. nobs 02:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for knowledge and understanding. 100% for it. In every way, shape, and form for knowledge and understanding. I'm not limiting my perspective by keeping up to date with the 21st century, nobs. The 21st century has more knowledge and understanding than any other century before it. It's the present. The sum of human knowledge is available to me because I live in this century. It means that I can know what they meant 100, 200, 500 years ago. It means I can know what they mean now. It means I can tap into the storehouse of knowledge known as the internet. It means I can preform legitimate hermaneutics and exegisis to find what words really mean in their original language. Why wouldn't I want to live in this century? ViveLiberté! 02:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Back to the main point: an offshoot of your attempt to create a logical premise, fallacy, or argument using the word hate, you are justifying and excusing racism. You are making legal that which is illegal. nobs 13:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, racism here is, like, the definition of a non sequiter. Oh also the undent looks weird and I'm not trying to make it seem like you were dodging the comment above but it was an EC. ViveLiberté! 13:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, to say hatred can be logically deduced is to justify racism. Why do we have hate crime legislation, if hate can be logically reasoned? That's why in the OP he meant to "dissgree", not "hate". nobs`

First off, let's be clear: hatred does not equal racism. I can hate people based on the colour of their skin, sure, but I can also hate them for their sexuality or their gender or the colour of their hair or their eyes or their ideas. Racism is a non sequiter because it was just so random and out of the blue. Next, no, we can't 'logically deduce' hatred (whatever that means - I'm still not sure and I've read this like three times). But, building a fallacy around the word hate doesn't automatically negate the fallacy. No true fallacy would use the word hate, right? Wrong. Hatred doesn't annul a fallacy. The presence of hatred can be used to point out the fallacy in the way he's suggessting. ViveLiberté! 16:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that is true. Since a fallacy is a negation. Assigning a name to it however, is a positive act adding to the body of logical rhetoric, hence legitimizing (see the relationship betweenuntil​ the words logic and legal) it, or making hatred having some logical or reasoned basis for argument. All crime is unreasonable. That is the basis of Law. It cannot be argued, justified, excused, reasoned, or have a logical basis. nobs 16:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We are making hatred have a reasoned basis for a fallacious argument. Hatred can't ever be used in a legitimate argument. Also, where did the law and crime come from? Barrel!Another! 17:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Crime came from people acting unreasonable. Law was invented to deal with them. nobs 17:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how this relates to the fallacy, but yes, that's true. Good job. Barrel!Another! 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The non sequitur is that even if can deduct the reason for hate and racism, that doesn't mean it's justifiable and neither legitimizes it the least. Example, racism against black people, we know people invent motives for it, blacks living in ghettos, the crime statistic, less of them doing well, etc., now racists trace it as intrinsical to them being black, believe they have less QI and are genetically more stupid on average, and not because of political conditions, segregation, reactionary (beware, my specific definition of it -_^) self-segregation and other environmental causes. They are very likely wrong, but we can very well intuit where their racism comes from, which thought processes cause it. Crimes also are not always completely unreasonable, but that doesn't mean they are right or that there is no alternative, except in some cases, such as hunger, desperation. Inequality favors them or anyway, there are conditions which favours them, from culture to economy, also interlinked.--78.15.253.193 (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Recycled commie crap debt ridden budget busters nanny state fast track to third world oblivion. It's not even a legitimate "leak"; it's a trial baloon they want to blame Vladimir Putin for when it fails. These idiots are still stuck in the 1930s. nobs 19:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

nobs, trying to make left-wing look archaic while believing in free-market ideas old much older than either Keynes or Marx, and having a very conservative view on social policies. Diacelium (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the most obvious trouble-point, which is the equivalent of throwing in the towel: Lower the voting age to 16. This means, despite all the govt goodies, freebies, handouts, and subsidies with unspecified sources, they already know voter demographics don',t provide enough support. Then, continuing on the assumption people are stupid, they counter with an argument more inexperienced and stupid people need a voice in the system. The Sandinistas tried this when they negotiated to allow elections, knowing without support of the violent and brainwashed jihadis youth, they hadn't a prayer. nobs 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You know it doesn't really read like a platform. It's more like a grocery store where all the high-profit items are stacked at eye-level, and you have to bend over and reach for cheap stuff on the bottom shelf. They load all the freebies up front; free train passes, free housing free this free that. At the bottom in the fine print is here's how we're gonna pay for it stick it to anybody making £80,000 or better etc etc etc. Folded with a crease down the middle with admission they know few people will fall this bullshit unless your 16 years old.

My favorite in this kinda tripe (again, near the top) is always, "make funds available", as if people are so fucking stupid the don't remember yesterday's debt-funding crisis. Suddenly. Voila! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! and "make funds available" by taxing you to death or cutting some other benefit program for this "new ides". nobs 03:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

it doesnt read 'like a platform' because it isnt. its a leak. the manifesto is out today and goes into more detail. irrelevant detail because labour are dead. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

the Template space is protected and cannot be edited by anyone? There is an important holiday missing from Template:Holydaze, tomorrow in fact, and this oversight should be corrected. Who's hungry? We're all hungry! (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It can't be edited by BoNs or new users, I imagine you'll be able to edit it when you're autoconfirmed which happens when your account is a day old and has 10 edits. What was the holiday you meant? Christopher (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

In future, you can make your own personal sandbox here (link works for everyone). Christopher (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Victory Day marks the surrender of Nazi Germany and end of the European part of World War II. In the west it was known as V-E Day on May 8. In Russia and other former Soviet countries it is on May 9 due to the time zone difference and it is arguably their most important public holiday. Who's hungry? We're all hungry! (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I forgot they'd celebrate it on a different day due to timezone differences, I think our Holydaze thingy on it should be on the 8th of May as that's when most of our readers would probably celebrate it. Christopher (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The USA (which is where the majority of our readers probably live) celebrates it on the 9th of August apparently, we probably have something about it for that date. Christopher (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

well, sure you could put up May 8 and omit May 9, if you want it to look like a deliberate snub against Russia. V-E Day is not a major day in the west anymore. In Russia it is their most important holiday, or maybe the second most after New Years. Don't worry, Russia is used to nothing but offensive snubs from westerners so what's one more? Especially when you have holidays commemorated like this and this and this. Who's hungry? We're all hungry! (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know how important it was in Russia and certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, I'll add it in a minute (could you not assume people are deliberately trying to offend you and get so angry about it in future though?). Christopher (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done it, it should appear tomorrow. We should probably have one for Victory Day in Europe as well but I doubt anyone's ever going to get round to it. Christopher (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

In the USA, V-J day or Victory Day is sometimes commemorated, but isn't that big a deal. There's also some ambiguity as to whether to celebrate it on Aug. 15, when Japan surrendered, or Sept. 2 when the surrender ceremony took place. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The actual importance of the Victory Day celebration in Russia has varied over the years, with particular decline after the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin has elevated the status of the day over the past 17 years of his reign,[3] likely in a symbolic reflection of empire building. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the Hammer and Sickle on display in Red Square during the May Day parades. This exposed the utter phoniness of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists. If they knew any facts in their haste to slander Trump with the label "traitor", which makes no sense in a world without borders, they would know the hammer and sickle is as offensive as the swastika or the Confederate flag. Yet, not a peep. nobs 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to dive into the truthiness of Trump/Russia conspiracy, but I'm no Communist and but I'd still say it's absurd to label the hammer and sickle as a symbol of hate. The hammer and sickle remains and has always been a symbol of proletarian unity (Literally the point of May Day). Even though it was used by various despotic regimes, it was specifically used in those regimes to project the facade proletarian unity. It wasn't coopted to represent anything else, and continued to be used in/around/outside those regimes with it's original meaning in-place.

On the other hand, the swastika had it meaning changed significantly (in the West at least), from a Subcontinental religious symbol, to a general symbol of good luck, before being coopted by the Nazis and heavily mythologised as representative of German Indo-Iranian/Aryan racial purity. The swastika is no longer considered a good luck symbol in the west, and is intimately intwined with Nazi ideology.

Yes, the hammer and sickle represents "communism", but the swastika doesn't represent "fascism". The comparison is that of economic ideals vs racial supremacy. -MVHVTMV (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Fourty million people died under the hammer and sickle. Their survivors are offended.

The Chinese are slowly buying into Hollywood production companies and movie theatre distribution outlets. They intend to own it all someday and likely will. One of their first international epic films - a joint Warner Bros/Chinese production, has a scene never before portrayed in American cinema. You need to see the full production to grasp its significance, but enough portions are in the trailer. During indiscriminate bombing and the rape of Nanking, a huge swastika flag is unfurled, the people run under it, and they are safe. IOW, the Chinese have made a huge investment, and one of the first statements they've made in this international production is a portrayal of the swastika as a symbol of safety and salvation. In a Hollywood film. Unheard of. nobs 23:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I whole heartedly disagree with your analysis of John Rabe, the film was a German production first and foremost with the reluctant help of the Chinese government (initially opposed for diplomatic reasons, and eventually supported primarily in opposition of Japanese revisionism). The idea that a man disgusted by war-crimes are enough to redeem the swastika from anything is hamfisted at best. Yes, many innocent people died fighting for the Nazi cause, but that doesn't change the symbolism.

Also, yeah. I appreciate that people do find the hammer and sickle offensive, and that it's been banned in several European nations, but it's utterly absurd to compare it directly to the swastika. Yes, many people died under Soviet occupation, but what I'm saying is that in most of the world the hammer and sickle still remains a symbol of something more than *just* CCCP atrocities, and it's still in frequent use by a large number of disparate socialist groups. No matter how shit you might think the political ideology is/was, the hammer and sickle is still a symbol of a political ideology, whereas the swastika is more readily liked to white-supremacy and anti-semitism and is never used to refer to a non-racial fascist ideology. -MVHVTMV (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a rare occasion where I'll agree with nobs on anything. I've seen Poles getting super pissed off at casual fashion use of the hammer and sickle specifically because for them it means Soviet oppression - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Instances of citing a marriage partners religion as child endangerment in a child custody case.[edit]

Are there any instances where someone successfully used their ex's religion as justification to deny them custody? Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions and believe most organizations are run by the devil which would suggest an unwillingness to take their kids to the hospital and Christian Scientists have been charged with negligence for refusing their children treatment. Has anyone made a case for their partners attitudes condemning abortion as being potential child endangerment? Some pregnancies can be fatal to the mothers health with certain medical conditions. X-Factor (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Depends on what country. Here in the US, A parent's religion is not usually considered to be against the "best interests of the child", though denying your child life-saving treatment or using physical abuse to make your kids do or do not practice a certain religion is a huge no-no. In other words: Does their ex's religion (or or lack of) have an opportunity of endangering a child?--Pokefrazer (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@X-Factor: The facts as stated rely on expert opinion. One group of experts would have argue in front of a judge the proceedure​ is necessary (which tri-mester would also be a consideration); opposing counsel would have experts to say they are full of shit. The Law doesn't really matter here. It's who can afford the better, more experienced experts to testify.

Nowadays you have experts in all fields, particularly medicine, who don't practice medicine. They hold a license but fly the country from court case to court case persuading juries one way or another explaining medical terminology to laymen. Like lawyers, they get paid on their win/loss ratio. nobs 02:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember where it was, but I remember reading this book about cults and religions, I think, about how adherents of certain religions or cults (as in small/new religions) lose custody of the child either fairly or unfairly. But like I said, I barely remember the name of the book, author, or the specific cases where it happened. I think I need to search them up. Ɀexcoiler KingboltNoooooooo!There's a roach on my Wall! 21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you accept that the Church of the SubGenius is a religion, Rachel Bevilacqua temporarily lost custody due to her membership (for about 3 years I think).[4]Bongolian (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a feeling that whoever has the most gold makes the rules. I imagine most conservative religious parents don't actually discuss the contingency plan of what to do if their daughter gets pregnant and stops eating, they just assume that it will never happen, like how they assume there's an afterlife. A detailed plan beforehand would make the abuse premeditated if that actually makes a difference. I'm guessing that grounding your kids to prevent them from going to a doctor after school would be legal as part of a curfew, and I'm not exactly sure physicians can even detect signs of force feeding without injuries from resisting restraints. I don't think teachers would really be able to detect this until the later stages of pregnancy, though they'd probably notice any severe mood changes, that alone is inconclusive. Sorry to keep bring up worst case scenarios that I hope are rare statistical outliers. X-Factor (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me, the Blair-haters and Cameron-haters are now allowing themselves to be manipulated by the same propaganda mouthpieces that brought you the Iraq & Libyan debacles. They are being transformed into Trump-haters. Trump's the guy taking on the elements within the Atlantic Alliance that brought you the Libyan and Iraq wars. nobs 20:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

oh poor rob. Duped by a imbecilic chancer with the skin tone of of an oompa loompa. that must sting. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah, if you just nobs hard enough and decide that "No, reality is the one who's wrong, here", then there's no suffering for accidentally endorsing exactly the sort of pointless militarism you called "Clintonism" ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So everyone's in agreement with the Blairites and Cameronites that taking out Saddam & Gaddafi was the right thing to do, and this judgement is formed by the same news organizations that duped your fellow citizens by demonizing Saddam & Gaddafi, now demonizing and wanting to take out Trump. nobs 21:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Taking out Saddam" was fucking stupid, and Blair rightfully got his party wrecked for his stupidity, New Labour had been poisoned with right wing ideologies, especially neoconservatism. More important to why you're fucking crazy: Gaddaffi was not ousted by a labour government in any way, shape, or form. Among the horrendous insanity of making that claim: labour was the one major party that was not part of the government coalition in 2011. It was conservatives and lib dems. Also Britain played an ancillary role in the 2011 intervention by NATO. Also, decapitation/regime change was not the stated goal of the 2011 intervention. Fractal wrongness abounds here, nobs. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 22:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think nobby's main problem is he believes (or wants to believe) that Trump has some kind of central, consistent political ideology and isn't just some celebrity trying desperately to wing it (and failing). Trump's like a projector screen, because all of his public statements are vague and noncommittal, enough people in the vague right sphere can see in him whatever they want. It's the reason why some Randian libertarians sincerely thought he was libertarian leaning, while at the same time the alt-right and "blue collar" Republicans thought he spoke for them as well. A few short and simple campaign slogans can do numbers on someone's political pscyhe. Just look at how many young progressives thought Obama was a radical change agent despite objectively not being one by any measure. Hentropy (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ikanread: I never said anything about Labour. I said the Blair-haters and the Cameron-haters - of which there is much over lap, and for the same reasons: Saddam and Gaddafi. And when the shit really hit the fan in Libya, Obama blamed Cameron for roping him into it.

The point is clear and simple: Trump sounds like Cindy Sheehan today blaming the PNAC & neocons for the same shit. And it's the same media and political establishment, irrespective of party in both countries, fighting back. Only this time against a more powerful opponent. And it's awfully hypocritcal of Bush, Blair, and Cameron critics anywhere to not see this. nobs 23:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I was almost tempted to agree, but then why he's also feeding the pro war propaganda abut Syria, depicting Assad as a sort of Hitler and what about North Korea? He's waist deep into establishment and tied with Goldman Sachs for the treasure, despite being voted by a part of electorate who was into anti-jew conspiracies and thought he was one to fight their power especially their banks, of course. Moreover he's hardline pro isreal policies to the point of supporting expansionism and new colonies. If any we could theorize about competing establishments at most, or different faces of the same coin.--78.15.253.193 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

He's resisting McMaster & Matthis call for 150,000 ground troops in Syria. Cruise missiles were a one time deal. The thinking is, the Jews are behind the remove Assad campaign to get rid of Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, which is in bed with Putin. Hence to not oppose Putin makes one a fascist and anti-Semite.

As to North Korea, they definitely are threat to economic development to the oil-rich Eastern Siberia, Sakhalin Island, and offshore rigs. China, Japan, South Korea (and North Korea if it were sane) would all benefit from this development, both in production of equipment, providing labor & expertise to the oil sector, and in chesper crude. This fundamentally is why Tillerson was selected. nobs 01:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump is just some weird old guy who is totally our of depth and doing random crazy stuff which his supporters then desperately try to reinterpret as if it represented some sort of coherent strategy. Until he makes some other random comment which puts them all on the wrong foot again. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've seen power struggles like this on the National Security Council staff (fyi, domestic policy stances, proposals, or accomplishments aint shit compared to the NSC). One of the closest parralels is the Reagan administration. Reagan went through 6 National Security Advisers in 8 years, basically a struggle between Kissinger associates and the Pentagon. The Pentagon ultimately won which carried through into the Papa Bush years and brought you such notables as Colin Powell & Dick Cheney. But Reagan announced from day one the position of National Security Advisor would be downgraded as a policymaking role of 2 of its most recent predecessors, Kissinger & Brezhinski, the positions of Def. Sec. & Sec. of State would be elevated again (for the first time since Lyndon Johnson) to policymaking roles.

The position that 'Trumps a senile old bastard haha' adds nothing to the debate over granting the IC, ODNI, and Dept. of Homeland Security such unlimited power, not just to violate civil rights, but to nullify elections and presidential perogatives. Trump just lacked experience and had no bench to fill the swamp. Let's be clear who the swamp is -- the Intelligence Community that brought you WMD, humanitarisnism with a bayonet up the ass of an ally, the Islamic State, and the European migrant crisis. Doing the IC's bidding only strengthens them, and delays reform. nobs 19:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth - so far I have seen three bits of Labour Party 'advertising' and nothing from the others in a fair amount of travelling in the London area (and, since the last election, Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish Nationalist Party, has been far more visible than 'whatshisgivenname' Farron). 86.191.125.221 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The only insanity is the tory manifesto. And the idea of having a second brexit referendum, which is one of the dumbest things I've heard. Diacelium (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If Rationalwiki developed a system of barn stars what would they be for? And should there be 'negative barn stars' (for those who really deserve them)? 31.51.113.42 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I imagine that they'd be for really, really well done edits or quality comments. As for implementing the system? You'd have to ask someone else about whether or not it's a good idea. I suggest talking to the good Reverend. And the negative ones? Bad editors tend to have a reputation, so maybe it wouldn't necessary. ViveLiberté! 22:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The Thumb's Up Barn Star for having a good line in put downs, the Melting clocks for 'stopped clock syndrome' (to convey what is meant), a child's windmill toy for those who refuse to budge from an untenable viewpoint, the Monty Python foot for ... 31.51.113.42 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we have an entire category of Barnstar award templates. I was awarded the Beerstar five years ago. I remember being given the Half-stale cookie as well. I can't see it on my talk page now, though. Anyway, you don't have to nominate a user for a Barnstar. You just give it to him or her by leaving a talk page message. It might be nice to spread a bit more love by giving them out more often. Spud (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

How does the barnstar system work ? Who decides to give, for exemple a beerstar to someone ? Diacelium (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

From reading through long gone users' talk pages, you just make a new section titled "a barnstar for you" or "here's a half eaten cookie" and put the template there. It appears to have fallen out of use. Christopher (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Could be trying to give Ecuador an excuse to unload their freeloader. Supposedly, he's still wanted on a minor charge in the UK. Bongolian (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

assange was never at risk of deportation, assassination or extraordinary rendition. he was and is too high profile for that shit. hes not even wanted in the us, despite a lot of talk. it was all paranoia and ego. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Question: if he had calmly gone to trial in Sweden and 'got some clever legal and other people to do negotiations' and done some plea bargaining etc - would he still be in prison? 86.191.125.138 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

deportation to the US i mean. Definitely would have gone to sweden. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a temporary suspension because they're unable to reach him, y'all. If it doesn't get brought back up, it'll be because he managed to evade long enough to pass limitations and whatnot. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 20:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

He's been there 5 years. Then, in the past 6 mos we learn Hillary wants him dead, and Pence & Pompeo want to see him in and orange suit for the rest of his life, which is the same thing. Then suddenly like magic, ok, you can come out now (after his two lawyers familiar with the case meet an untimely demise). nobs 04:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The common thread between those two good videos is that they seem to feature people who know what the fuck they're talking about. It does sort of handwave the very real threat of anti-Muslim hate crimes as unimportant, it's largely a good video. They even tapped Ayaan Hirsi Ali for another video on Islam which is surprisingly good, at least in the sense that it's not hopelessly warped in favor of a single worldview. Hentropy (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with emotional eating, I was talking with my mom today and I mentioned the reason I probably emotionally eat is to hide my personal insecurities. Any tips? First Church of the Rabid Zombie Squirrels

This is one of those CBT things. Find the mental pattern you don't like, find a step in that thought process to insert a replacement action, develop new, healthier habit. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It may also be the case that the actual eating is (in a relative sense) less of a problem compared to what you're eating. Do you happen to love apples? If so, you're in luck. They're cheap and plentiful, often sweet, take some time to chow down, offer some chewing resistance (helps tire out your jaws), and best of all — even better than just 'being healthy' (in this context) — they contain very little, aside from fibre and water. Especially the fibre part means you'll fill up rather quick on them. Not "satiety-full", but "better able to override a general eating impulse-full". Note also that I don't suggest just eating apples all the time. The primary solution here lies closer to what Ikanreed talks about above — i.e., seeing a psychiatrist and discussing CBT and/or medication — but what IS true is that adding atleast one sweet apple (though preferably two or more) as the first "dish" when comfort eating, and/or interspersing apples throughout your "meal" (regardless of if your eating habits are more "binge" or "constant snacking") will help you fill up a lot faster, for cheap, adding water and dietary fibre, without actually upping your energy intake all that much. This also works as part of a general weight loss strategy, btw — you'll find it surprisingly difficult to slay your typical size portion or steak if you've stuffed down an apple or two just prior to sitting down for dinner. Combining this with using smaller plates (onto which you still pile what looks like your ordinary portion size) can make a big difference over time. In short; if the eating is of the "nervous" variety, a professional (CBT/medication) should be your first stop. If it's more of the "munchies" variety, adding apples might be sufficient. Though, consider adding apples in both scenarios (and remember, always prior to ingesting the regular high-energy food!). "How do you like dem apples?" Hope this helps! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried the psychiatrist office but I only see the nurse practitioner as the doctor works mostly at the hospital, the nurse really did not know.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Emotional eating is not an uncommon complaint, so they should really be able to offer you more than just a shrug. Couldn't you try to book a meeting with an actual doctor (not a nurse) via phone? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I've found here a pair of evangelical radio stations, that come with the usual BS of them -most of it "canned" from US churches- (the gems I remember include negating evolution, Paul's misoginy, the second coming as well as the BS that appears in the Book of Revelation being near, complaining about nobody talking about Hell just about Heaven, NWO BS, and of course begging for monies). It seems all that stupidity is coming here, even if thank Gods it seems nobody gives a fuck about them, like the JW.

There are several genres of religious radio active in these parts today. The newest format, and the one that seems to be gaining in popularity, is Christian pop music, branded with names like "K-Love" and "Positive Hits." These stations play bland, watered down, heartless soft rock music. Then there is christian talk, mostly preaching and/or right wing politics, as exemplified by the types of radio formats used by Salem Radio Network. Old croaked Harold Camping's network, Family Radio, is still around with nonstop church music and bible readings. The Catholics have their EWTN network with stations all over the place, too. The worst of all (and these are all pretty bad) is American Family Radio, which is a glorified regressive right wing hate factory propped up by pious beliefs. Various church organizations have abused loopholes in government regulations and have established large networks of low powered FM transmitters. And this is just what's found on the medium wave (AM) and FM bands here on the east coast of the USA. Shortwave radio originating from the US is dominated by religious programming, including some of the most insane fringe programming.

Broadcast band radio is slowly dying, killed by the internet. However it's still a fertile ground for the Christian evangelicals.

Right now, terrestrial radio as a whole is experiencing what AM radio went through in the '50s and '60s with the rise of both FM radio and television. Back then, the pop music moved to FM and the dramas and comedies moved to TV, leaving AM radio with just a) oldies aimed at middle-aged-and-up listeners who were still loyal to their old stations, b) news, talk, sports, public radio, and emergency services where the long reach of AM signals was more important than sound quality, and c) religious stations. Now, with the rise of smartphones, the once-captive markets of commuters and at-work listeners now have alternatives to the radio, so pop music is migrating to streaming services. It's hit modern rock especially hard. Rock music led the way in moving to the internet with the MySpace-driven emo boom in the 2000s, such that it was the first to start dying on terrestrial radio, with most modern rock stations moving to an "active rock" format that incorporates a lot of classic rock to pull in older listeners. I noticed it happening in New York as early as 2006. In the other direction, the changes in radio are also part of the reason why country music is so big right now. In 2017, the Venn diagram between country fans and people who prefer radio over streaming contains a lot of overlap — they're both older, more rural demographics who may not have, or even want, smartphones capable of hassle-free streaming. Radio broadcasters are flocking to them, and a number of non-country artists, from Jon Bon Jovi to Kid Rock to Miley Cyrus, have started moving in a more country direction in order to shore up a fanbase that they know will spend money on CDs. (There was a great bit in Grand Theft Auto V where a parody of Paula Deen has a famous pop star as a guest on her show. Said pop star just switched to making country music and taking on a Southern accent and a right-wing culture warrior persona, and she basically admits that she did it as a sellout move to pander to the one demographic that "doesn't have a clue what downloading is.")

Looking at my local radio stations, I see that South Florida is well along this path. Up in West Palm Beach, you've got an oldies pop standards station and a K-Love affiliate occupying prime real estate at the center of the FM dial. Ten years from now, Top 40 pop music and hip-hop are likely going to have followed modern rock music onto the internet, with many stations in those formats moving to adult contemporary, urban contemporary, or oldies in order to keep going. You'll also see a lot more sports, news/talk, and of course, religious stations on FM radio. I've been noticing ESPN Radio colonizing the FM wavelength in a few cities over the last few years, and it doesn't look like it's slowing down. KevinR1990 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What do I think? Listening to gospel music is a great way of practicing your beliefs without actually thinking about what it entails. It keeps up with the times to make sure it doesn't try to stand out. Makes the religious feel modern, feel up to date. It maintains normalcy in the most religious body of power in the world. It makes them feel like they are progressing, when in reality they are not. When you listen to music played in the style of blues and country, you don't get that.

Being a religious person person myself. One who enjoyed and delved into the realms of hard rock to extreme metal. My piers called me a redneck for a reason. You know. I only go here for one reason, and that's because I came across a statement that described religious people as degenerate pieces of garbage. You know, like me. Every time I think about those statements. I wouldn't be bothered to listen to music. Sometimes not for weeks, just knowing people hated you. I've become extremely hostile towards my friends because of it.

The stations I mention are harmless compared to those you mention and do not emit gospel music, or at least not what you in US understand as that. All the music broadcasted there is Christian pop or at best rock (no metal). As for the content, most is harmless -just talking and talking about Bible passages and Christ, asking a minister to pray for someone or something...-. What concerns me are those bits of NWO -Catholic Church included-, negation of Evolution, talking about the Revelation events going to happen, or even already happening and similar gems of BS. Those things are not seen the same way when you've them closer, even if nobody gives a fuck about them, than when they're at thousands of kilometers away.

Another issue are people preaching, even if fortunately Chick tracts have not arrived here (yet). Not those as JW or others, who are on transited places giving brochures -and just targetting immigrants, by the way-, or those who simply are there singing or whatever but those who assault you with a Bible or brochures of their churches for... you know, and even if you're not interested and give them your arguments keep harassing you (I've had issues with that kind of people). Some time ago, a woman who likes to preach in the subway transversing the entire train several times got into a discussion with someone who disliked her ideas. It ended with her being thrown out of the train as she began to say (in loud voice?) said man was a sinner, or at least that's what I was told.

As for the 'stand and deliver (message deliverers)' - 'by their deeds shall you know them' and 'talk is cheap' (and the person who picks up a bit of rubbish and puts it in the bin has contributed more to the world). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

All the half decent British newspapers are shriveling up, and their websites are becoming more clickbaity. It looks like soon only the crap like the Express and Sun will remain. 94.1.173.14 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Internet subcultures take advantage of the current media ecosystem to manipulate news frames, set agendas, and propagate ideas.

Far-right groups have developed techniques of “attention hacking” to increase the visibility of their ideas through the strategic use of social media, memes, and bots—as well as by targeting journalists, bloggers, and influencers to help spread content.

The media’s dependence on social media, analytics and metrics, sensationalism, novelty over newsworthiness, and clickbait makes them vulnerable to such media manipulation.

While trolls, white nationalists, men’s rights activists, gamergaters, the “altright,” and conspiracy theorists may diverge deeply in their beliefs, they share tactics and converge on common issues.

The far-right exploits young men’s rebellion and dislike of “political correctness” to spread white supremacist thought, Islamophobia, and misogyny through irony and knowledge of internet culture.

Media manipulation may contribute to decreased trust of mainstream media, increased misinformation, and further radicalization.

Back when leftists were still able to score political successes, they freely used comedy and troll tactics. Remember Abbie Hoffman? Roel van Duijn? Lenny Bruce, even? The current left have made themselves quite unattractive by acting like a pearl-clutching establishment smug in their self-anointed moral superiority. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smerdis ...so that came off sounding a tad defensive, don't you think? All I was saying was just; "Hi Ratwikians! We should have an article on all sorts of media manipulation, because that stuff would be good to learn about, right?". Aside from that — I don't even speak partisan, so... I'm really just left nodding and smiling in confusion. (e.g "Back when leftists were still able..."? *nods and smiles confusedly*)Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I'm more reacting to the content of the PDF in question. It made a number of good points, but I thought it undermined itself somewhat by referring to 'male privilege' and similar constructs as self-evident truths, and other evidence of Not Getting It. And what's most vexing is that those bits of the text appear in the middle of passages that seem to accept that this troll culture consists mostly of very marginalized people, for whom the promise of 'male privilege' is about as bankable as junk mail from Publisher's Clearing House. It may well be a text meant for the edification of believers rather than evangelism, but the effect is rather like having your own behavior analyzed in terms of original sin, which would likely annoy you as a rhetorical turn. Contemporary identitarian leftism seems to produce more theologians than evangelists, and more would-be inquisitors than either; but this may be true of all faiths at all periods. What is the color of the pill to take that makes you a believer in things like 'male privilege'? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine now, just went on it again. Christopher (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not too sure myself. It is a 13 months old site hosted in the USA to a c/- spanish address, a gmail account, and in the name of a gentleman who also owns a few dozen other addresses, which all seem to be mainly scrapes of 4chan hosted in various countries with the same names/address/email/phone. There's a few orange flags on his LinkedIn account, but they might be translation ambiguities.

Thrice in 7-8 different pages on his sites => giving focus to the page tried to run an instance of PHP mCrypt - a buggy, depreciated encryption command which hasn't been updated since 2007 and has been declared abandonware. Considering the background on his LinkedIn that just shouldn't be something any page of his should be doing.

I've intentionally not cited sources to err on the side of caution with regards to the obvious, but yeah this is a site I'm going to avoid. Daev (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I was proud to see that the many posts recommending RW came not from people who were fanatically promoting RW as flawless — but rather, from people who were themselves psychologically capable of taking the good with the bad and integrating it all into a cohesive, nuanced and generally fair account (read: people who were not overcome with splitting).

Furthermore, I enjoyed observing how the vast majority of the anti-RW commenters — triggered gators/manospherians/kekistanians/woomeisters aside — came from people who obviously had not read the twomost important articles for getting a clue about what RW is even about.

All in all — every instance of frank opposition to RW came from various incompetents, while none of our supporters came across as mouth-frothing zealots even in recommending our site. In other words: win-win. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Incompetents!?! I'm not even a dissenter! Oh, Crap, I just took exception to something that wasn't explicitly about me, didn't I? Ask me about the Keystone XL five years ago. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Also you guys are forgetting family and fetal alcohol syndrome. Democrats are bad because UNions are bad because dad Isn't union. Not joking, this is a real/impossible to defeat argument. I guess it's nihilism for this boy scout Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Lindsay and Boghossian's Sokal-style hoax: What are your thoughts?[edit]

What are your thoughts on James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian's antics via their Sokal-style hoax "The conceptual Penis as a Social Construct", where they basically tried (and, in my opinion, failed) to take gender studies down a peg. And what's happening to the atheist/skeptic community? It's all about point-scoring now.Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

My neat and ordered two cents: PZ nails this one perfectly (and similar conclusions on the stunt are drawn by others here and here). And I say that especially as a fan of the original Sokal hoax. I honestly think Boghossian made himself look kinda stupid pulling this move (assuming PZ has all the facts straight in his analysis).

My messy fistful of unsorted change: as far as I'm aware, I'm certainly no enemy of Boghossian (admittedly, I keep few enemies). In other words, I have no prior beef with the man — though, I must admit I don't know much about him (or the company he keeps). Much of what little I know of Boghossian comes from the fact that he has, on occasion, said (or written) some short saying I've deemed as fully quoteworthy.

I also happen to own one of his books (Manual for Creating Atheists), and while I found it to feel much more "broscience"-y (think Joe Rogan in its style and tone) than I had anticipated, it was ultimately not without its merits, either. I would probably recommend it on its own — however, if I was asked to recommend it comparatively; e.g. via listing my personal "top Atheist books", then atleast some 30-odd titles (all from other authors) would score higher than it on my list.

So, then — speak of the harm wrought by attempting to flame too gleefully — I'm not here to spew vitriol on a longstanding nemesis or something. But, conversely, I'm not here to wash a snowy white and wipe the man's bottom, either. In short, I'm Lawful Neutral on the issue (and on Boghossian). But even so, I personally find that two things in particular stand out about this whole stunt, which just make me cringe in real life.

Firstly; the fact that this stunt is just so painfully derivative — even to the point of openly trying to leech cred from Sokal's brilliant original hoax. Forget paying homage to Sokal; instead, based in part on the impression made by their unwarranted confidence in their "findings", they seem to have been claiming this as the "Sokal 2.0"! But any new and improved Sokal hoax, this is not. Never mind the fact that — back in the day — Sokal had himself graciously pointed out that no wild conclusions could be drawn, even from his (successful) "experiment". Boghossian, in all his drive to ape after Sokal, apparently missed that side of the original story.

Secondly; Boghossian just seems filled with schadenfreude — basically, foaming salivating visibly by the mouth. And not just to the point of it all becoming a bit unappealing, but — crucially — to the very point where Boghossian seems to lose hold of which conclusions, if any may reasonably be drawn about gender studies (read: his favorite anti-fandom) on the basis of his failed stunt.

And that's a sad sight on its own — the fact that Boghossian seems sohorny fired-up to just bash gender studies, no matter what, that even an objectively pointless stunt (like the one he just pulled) is being promoted to the world by him as if it were some sort of "significant blow" or milestone in a struggle. It's certainly neither.

And, best/worst of all (take your pick), the stunt failed not by virtue of any particular quality inherent to gender studies, per se — but because the stunt itself was so incompetently designed and executed in a manner so profoundly lacking in purpose. I mean, I'm frankly amazed Boghossian didn't just scrap the whole project when they had to start reaching for the checkbook in order to force this thing past the very same initial hurdle it would've had to have passed on its own for the stunt to have any semblance of a point to begin with. It boggles the mind (sunk cost bias, anyone?).

I mean, even as a sort-of "relative peer" of his — certainly a well-wisher — I simply am not able to follow Boghossian here, in his highly personal (and, clearly, emotionally motivated) line of reasoning. And never mind following it — even then, Boghossian's stunt just looks rather silly from the outside. I imagine, even when seen from the flattering ideological vantage point of "right next to him".

In other words; my critique of Boghossian's stunt ironically has about as little to do with the actual state of gender studies as Boghossian's failed hoax has to do with the same. As a tediously obvious aside: of course there are problems, both numerous and varied, which do indeed plague much of contemporary gender studies (broadly speaking). This comes as no surpise, considering that all non-stagnant areas of the humanities are beset by issues. Though — depending on the metric by which you measure — certain outstanding issues are doubtless unique to the field of gender studies. But I digest. At any rate, I hope I've been perfectly upfront about my ongoing satisfaction with the original Sokal hoax.

So, as such — assuming I haven't underestimated how redpilled Boghossian might have become as of late — I'm likely front row center in Boghossian's intended target audience. I should be the easiest for Boghossian to impress here. And yet, all this stunt did was gross me out a bit.

Indeed, I'm making this critical case based on the simple impression — which must surely be recognizable to anyone who isn't as blinded by personal axe grinding as Boghossian — that, plain and simple, this particular stunt just isn't any type of purported "reasoned exercise in postmodernism vs the Enlightenment" or the likes. Instead, this whole thing seems to me primarily a product of unchecked biases — not of 'reason', in any Enlightenment sense.

And reading through it all — once the dreadful labouring of the point (in this failed stunt) is allowed to shine through — is, psychologically, sort of like being invited to sit through an embarassing airing of Boghossian's own dirty laundry.

It's a bit like witnessing one gargantuan Freudian slip of sorts, on the part of Boghossian. Adding insult to injury, Boghossian (as town crier) megaphones this whole charade to the public as decidedly "a failure on part of the enemy", as opposed to something like "a patently weird move on his part". The cringe is real. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Can? Absolutely. Should be? *insert 3000 page pedantic internet argument where the people who are probably right give up and go home, leaving a small circlejerk behind*. The short version of my opinion is that you really can't undermine the credibility of a field by proving that there are credulous people involved with it somewhere. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 17:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Especially when that "credulity" was the result of you bribing them to please accept the very same nonsensical "gender studies" paper you — a minute later — indignantly spin around to loudly complain you "just can't believe got accepted" This whole stunt really does come across as mean-spirited, compared to the genuinely witty Sokal hoax... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Previously discussed here. I call bullshit on them. They had a point about predatory journals, but they had the nerve to jump the gun until they hit the mesosphere to say that "gender studies are powered by man-hating folks" because a low-impact pay-to-publish journal had published a research paper equivalent to a used sanitary napkin. Though their paper is intentionally unreadable, their post on Skeptic has a wordy writing style that makes it difficult to comprehend. It comes naturally to them that their writing sucks. They can look at themselves if they want examples of terrible writing because, god, they're a chore to read.

This already damning characterization of our hoax understates our paper’s lack of fitness for academic publication by orders of magnitude.

However, in the short term, pay-to-publish may be a significant problem because of the inherent tendencies toward conflicts of interest (profits trump academic quality, that is, the profit motive is dangerous because ethics are expensive)

These facts cast considerable doubt on the facile defense that Cogent Social Sciences is a sham journal that accepted “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” simply to make money. As a result, wherever Cogent Social Sciences belongs on the spectrum just noted, there are significant reasons to believe that much of the problem lies within the very concept of any journal being a “rigorous academic journal in gender studies.”

Sokal’s aim was to demonstrate that fashionable linguistic abuses (especially relying upon puns and wordplay related to scientific terms), apparent scientific authority, conformity with certain leftist political norms, and flattery of the academic preconceptions of an editorial board would be sufficient to secure publication and thus expose shoddy academic rigor on the part of postmodernist scholarship and social commentary.

The scientific community was exuberant that Sokal burst the postmodern bubble because they were fed up with postmodernists misusing scientific and mathematical terms to produce jargon-laden nonsense and bizarre social commentary carrying the apparent gravitas of scientific terminology.

The most potent among the human susceptibilities to corruption by fashionable nonsense is the temptation to uncritically endorse morally fashionable nonsense. That is, we assumed we could publish outright nonsense provided it looked the part and portrayed a moralizing attitude that comported with the editors’ moral convictions. Like any impostor, ours had to dress the part, though we made our disguise as ridiculous and caricatured as possible—not so much affixing an obviously fake mustache to mask its true identity as donning two of them as false eyebrows.

Sokal exposed an infatuation with academic puffery that characterizes the entire project of academic postmodernism. Our aim was smaller yet more pointed. We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field.

A lecture, for the record, seemingly being given primarily so that the lecturers may bask themselves in the reflected glory of Sokal's historic stunt (they'll need it) and, likewise, to defensively wrap themselves in the guise of Sokal, in the hope that the tomatoes we so deservedly pelt them with be mistaken, by some passersby, for the mere unjust vengeance of a rightfully Sokal-hoaxed gaggle of haters. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

June Bugs. Ray thinks bananas are bananas? Nah, June Bugs are everywhere, despite the fact that 'June Bug Procreation' in a Google search returnettyy d a video of 'June Bugs in May aHA Shitty name!' in the top three videos. From my experience, June Bugs only lie on their backs or fly right at you. How would these super scary bugs survive for a little over 6000 years if God didn't just make them up every summer?

Being said, where are all the Dinosaurs and Dragons? And why is n' t society perfect since we all descended from superNoah? A Junebug just suggested I eat blueberries, do I do it? And when do I find the time to write this down as a thing that literally happened?

Blueberries are in season and everyone should get them right now and I don't know why life is pain forever because of this but women sure suck THE BIBE 1:1Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Which

Are you real or a random text generator? 86.146.99.29 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Even the captcha joined in - suggesting 'underpants' 31.49.115.220 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Speaking out of my butthole and using my semi-fallible sense of political instincts, I think the anti-Trump resistance is backfiring. The Tea Partiers and birthers never rose to the level of vitriol and hatred that streams out 24/7. What it's doing is strengthening Trump. Don't believe it? By all means, compare Trump to Nixon. Nixon remains to this day, the most popular vote getter in the nation's 228 year history, save George Washington.

I never was an enthusiastic Tru!p supporter. I'd still vote for him over Hillary Clinton. But with each senseless barb aimed at him, my sympathy grows. I even felt the same way toward Obama in his early presidency, until Obama started lying and fuckin up.

Sooner or later Trump will address the nation in a primetime Oval Office speech. It won't be like past presidents. And he's gonna put the mindless cocksuckers in their place. nobs 02:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

this user possesses genuine curiosity and enquires as to the opinion of others regarding such manner of racy advertisement clickbaits and the encounter rate of these ads on the end of the others.FAMAS(Talk)(Contribs) [[6]] [[7]] 14:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"... encounter rate of these ads on the end of the others." What? 94.1.173.14 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS isn't particularly easy to understand, I think "encounter rate of these ads on the end of others" means how many people click on these ads? I have no idea. Christopher (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think he means 'how often do other people see ads like these?' FAMAS, you know that Google gives you ads based on browsing history, right.. Barrel!Another! 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Famas: Use Adblock, you'll almost never see ads like this again. Ads like this suck, they're just "sex sells" in pixel form. At least the "MIRACLE DIET" or "DOCTORS HATE THIS" ads have some funky images. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

id rather see an ad or two if it means getting content gratis. i am more concerned when ads tailored to what google discovered from reading your emails.AMassiveGay (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I'm sorry. FAMAS was one of my robots who got away from me, I didn't finish uploading the "How to speak HU-MAN" file. Also, THAT USER picked his own name. I was gonna name him Johnny 6.Asaac Isimov (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See, this is why liberal journalists have no credibility. 20 years ago, both men and women journalists made it a point we should know they all had a big boner in their pants for Tony Blair. Now they ask, 'Where did this piece of shit come from?'. nobs 03:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, some people change their opinions based on 20 years of stuff happening - those librul fucks! 88.105.29.192 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Disgusting, people dare to change their opinions about someone? Christopher (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does this study from First Monday list cracked as a conspiratorial website?[edit]

According to this study, which rates Rationalwiki at the top of debunking websites, Cracked is at the bottom of the table for conspiracy websites, which makes me wonder which of the 15 conspiracy theories this study quantifies search engine results for is supported on cracked? X-Factor (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not the only weird thing in that study. They have Daily Mail listed as a neutral source. They have Time Magazine (content.time.com), Slate, and The Onion (!) listed as debunking sites. The study seems like a case of letting the "new methodology" dictate the outcome without having any reality checks about what is actually getting measured. Bongolian (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone now knows that Comrade Trumski is a Russian mole, but is that all? But there is also a possibility that he is a triple-agent - a deep-cover Muslim:

Jesus was a wine-drinker, but wine-drinking is forbidden in the Quran, and so Trumski, as a good Muslim is a tee-totaler.

Dancing is frowned upon by Muslims, and so Trumski, as a good Muslim does not dance.

Jesus said, "Sell all you have and give the money to the poor." Mark 10:21, but Muslims beleive that wealth is a gift from God, and so Trumski, as a good Muslim...

Jesus said, "Any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery." Mark 10:11, but multiple marriages are allowed by the Quran and so Trumski, as a good Muslim, has three wives.

Jesus said, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life maimed, than to have two hands and go to Hell." Mark 9:43 But Trumpski uses his hand to molest married women, and then boasts that he can use his hand to "grab them by the pussy".

In one of the Bon Fire pits at the apartment complex, he started a fire using diesel fuel! Plus he got drunk and wanted to add more fuel! How the other apartments didn't burn down is amazing. I like my apartment and I am sure as hell not wanting it to be a pile of burning rubble. The land lord was not too happy when the guy who lived in the apartment before him was a total drunk then started dangerous fires.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Diesel fuel is perfectly fine for starting fires, it does not blow up like gasoline, and is the recommended accelerant to use for starting bonfires. Although flammable, it does not emit vapors as much as gasoline does. Diesel engines ignite it using compression, not spark plugs. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi all So whats happening is My country is now not just a white monopoly but also the personal treasure chest for that crook I mean president Zuma and the Gupta Family.— Unsigned, by: ThatSouthAfrican / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

...but I actually wasn't aware of just how nutty the historical roots of the "modern" organic farming (aka organic agriculture) craze really were until just the other day. While I've been doing my homework on the practice (as best I've been able) for years now, I'd somehow missed this particular, introductory shit nugget about its history.

Biodynamic agriculture was the first modern system of agriculture to focus exclusively on organic methods.[16][17][18][19]: Its development began in 1924 with a series of eight lectures on agriculture given by Rudolf Steiner.[20][21] These lectures, the first known presentation of what later came to be known as organic agriculture,[16] were held in response to a request by farmers who noticed degraded soil conditions and a deterioration in the health and quality of crops and livestock resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers.[22] The one hundred eleven attendees, less than half of whom were farmers, came from six countries, primarily Germany and Poland.[16] The lectures were published in November 1924; the first English translation appeared in 1928 as The Agriculture Course.[23]

That's right — Rudolf Steiner rears his ugly head once more. In my journey as some type of would-be Skeptic, Steiner and his goons keep popping up in my path when I least expect it (and, admittedly, making asses of themselves); they're basically my Team Rocket at this point.

So let me get this straight: for 10 billion years prior to 1924, humans were engaged in synthetic agriculture and ate nothing but plastic and nylon. Then when this marvelous discovery was translated into English in 1928, it was just in time for the Great Depression which forced millions to sell the family farm and quit agriculture. Does that cover it? nobs 05:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@CBF Oh my fucking God, I could kiss you! Right on your sour lips! Thank you for making my day with that shoop — the belly laugh it gave me probably bought me a week's worth of life extension (at some future intensive care unit).

@nobs What makes you think people can be grown agriculturally? Sounds like the same relativist thinking that killed 100 hundred million people Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've tried the nylon and plastic diet. The problem I run into is that the stuff doesn't really need preservatives. And I need a lot of preservatives in my diet; otherwise I start smelling bad. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the current industrial agriculture make farming lands infertile and pollute phreatic zones though ? (I'm on another computer but it's me, Diacelium) 213.41.236.78 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, don't be confused — the argument isn't that crappy agricultural practices are somehow not crappy. In fact, the argument is precisely that crappy agricultural practices are most crappy indeed.

How about expanding our Rudolf Steiner article. Also we could use an article on the founder of the organic movement, J. I. Rodale. Particularly noteworthy is Rodale's ironic death (see the WP article). Bongolian (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We must.

And, perhaps less urgently, we could indeed use an article on Rodale as well.

Concerning his death — this was a fascinating read, and as it happens, the text speaks volumes on the biases of memory.

We always think we've got a clue. But as a matter of fact, we rarely do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if those who defend YEC, especially the loony fringe who thinks everything, not just fossils, that shows they're wrong were put in place by Satan or even God Himself, have thought on the very deep implications it would have if they were right -either the Universe, an Universe as the one Science has revealed us, was created by and has in charge someone who... well just read the OT, or it's just a big lie placed by someone who either has not been inexplicably eliminated by the Boss when said Boss is said to be far more than capable of it, or it's a simply a big douchebag who breaks his own laws. Think about it. --Panzerfaust (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC).

As a former YEC, both yes and no. I thought about those implications, realized they couldn't be true and still have a god worthy of worship, and so came to the obvious conclusion that eventually science would agree with the Bible. Which led me to learn as much as I could about science, which led me to where I am now. I obviously can't speak for all YECs, and it's probable that those stuck in there haven't thought about it or, if they have, it just feeds into their persecution complex, and that they have the only real truth while everyone else is duped by Satan's lies. Onychoprion (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Just in case, don't take that comment as a personal insult. I often think about having the OT YHWH at basically cosmic scale and did not like at all the implications. --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What comment wasn't supposed to insult? XD And yeah, the implications are pretty heavy. S'why I strayed away from those conclusions when I came to them. Checked my premises, etc. I should probably write a big long thing about my deconversion... -- Onychoprion (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The thing is also that if God creates that shitty, small Universe described in the Bible but at the same time creates the fake one maybe he's not allmighty (is much less than that), as he chose the easy way instead of creating the kind of Universe as the real one that would befit to a far more powerful entity. And if Gawd is powerful enough to create the real Universe one has to wonder why he did not talk about his creations in the Bible or left clues to them, but at the same time is debatable why he'd be interested in just one small desert tribe of an unremarkable planet… you get the idea. Unless Christ had gone Messiah across the Universe (must be a sucking Eternity, dying horribly elsewhere.--93.191.139.10 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively - the biblical quote to the effect 'when I was a child ... when I ceased being a child I put away childish things' can be interpreted (if you are so inclined) as - that was the way the universe was interpreted then, but when 'we generally (or the astronomers and others in particular) learnt more' we moved away from those earlier views.

And one can feel wonder at the universe and the things in it and feel that if there is 'a creative spirit' this was what was being created (and we sentients are responsible for the little trivialities on whichever planet we call Earth). 86.146.99.112 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this wiki that the Adam and Eve myth it's a fine allegory of growing and have to agree 100% with it. It's a pity that while it was understarable in the past people took it (as other things as the Flood) as real, like Usher's date for the beginning of everything that were done with the little available (read: Bible), now after centuries of scientific advancement and overwhelming evidence for the contrary some still take all of that for real. --Panzerfaust (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. What I want to see detected is what BICEP2 failed to find (basically some the signs left behind by cosmic inflation) --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that remains beyond the reach of current detectors, which are barely able to detect the gravitational waves emitted from black holes, but not yet neutron stars. But never fear, for the next generation of gravitational wave detectors is already under development. Nerd271 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you think one day we can detect a warp wave from a ship? (If possible) I can't w8 for a better detector. 2d4chanfag (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There're other experiments ongoing (BICEP3, etc) looking for the same in similar ways. The thing is that those B-modes [seem to be very low], if they exist at all (I remember to have seen elsewhere estimated values of 0.01). As for the "warp", there's [this] claiming to look in the CMB for signals of intergalactic ships moving at almost c. Not warp a la Star Trek, but close enough. --Panzerfaust (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

As a kid I used to have this book, In the Beginning by some guy named Brown. It was basically a long list of proofs of creationism. Unfortunately I don't have it anymore, but I saw it on Amazon for not too much money. Seems like the type of thing that'd be good for a side-by-side rebuttal, and probably a jumping-off point for a hydroplate theory article. Goo idea, or is it too obscure to worry about? Onychoprion (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Googling "In the Beginning" is unlikely to be any use, mind providing a link? Christopher (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, sorry. Here's the Amazon link: link. From what I remember it's very similar to 101 Evidences, at least in style. Onychoprion (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it's anything we haven't seen before but I'd support a page for it. Christopher (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A search on 'Brown In the Beginning' gives [8] with a download at [9]- I presume this is the book in question. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That does appear to be the same book, thanks! Christopher (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad to be of help (the index is rubbish by the way). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Now I won't have to spend $30! Also, it's simultaneously exactly what I remember, and yet worse than I imagined. XD Onychoprion (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Even IF President Obama was Muslim- so fucking what?! The constitution protects freedom of religion. They also mention less than 1% of Kenya is atheist (they mentioned Obama's father "claimed" to be atheist), thing is that the statistic shows there are atheists.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you post this in the right place? Christopher (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm an 18 year old Brazilian student who graduated high school last year, and I have noticed a trend concerning climate change among academics in my country. In my high school years, 2 of the 3 Geography teachers I had were climate skeptics. I know they both studied Geography in Brazil's top college, the University of São Paulo (USP). Most school textbooks present the issue of climate change in a balanced way (they say most scientists accept it, but there are many who disagree with the concept, and its nature is controversial) I've been searching about it, and it seems that, according to Ricardo Augusto Felício, probably the leading climate skeptic (who was interviewed by a famous Brazilian talk show), 3 of the 5 professors in the Department of Climatology of USP's Geography School are climate skeptics. He claims the number is actually greater, since researchers fear admitting they don't believe in global warming because, according to him, study financing is cut to those who deny climate change.

I haven't ready their papers and I know almost nothing about this topic, but I'm listing some claims I've seen from their interviews such as [10][11].

According to Felício, it's absurd to call CO2 a pollutant, since it's very important to life in this planet. It wouldn't be reasonable to say plants generate their energy from a pollutant. Moreover, CO2 is only 0,033% of the Earth's atmosphere, which wouldn't be enough to have such a drastic effect on climate. Nevertheless, most CO2 comes from the sea, and humans emit less carbon dioxide than insects.

Humans are only able to transform local climate, not global, according to Renato Crispiniano.

The Ozone layer does not exist. According to Felício: "The concept of "layer" is a reduction of something that is much more complex. What happened is that, slowly, it became an entity. There is no such layer. What exist is the ozonosphere, part of the low stratosphere, where the probability of the existence of the ozone gas is greater, due to particular conditions. Consequentially, ozone presents itself as clouds, not as a layer, which are part of this region of the atmosphere where pressure is very slow (from 50 to 10mb, when on the surface, at sea level, it's 1013,25mb. Not even Gordon Dobson himself used terms such as "layer" or "ozone holes". They already knew the variations were extreme. From an hour to another, a variation of 1000% (one thousand) can be verified in ozone concentrations, due to its high reactivity. Simultaneously, it's important to emphasize that this gas is only produced because of ultraviolet-C radiation. No light, no ozone. It's that simple. For that reason, in the polar regions, its low concentration verified during their respective winters can be explained by the absence of solar light and not because of CFCs or other stuff like that. The differences between Earth's hemispheres made the anomalies about the South Pole higher than those in the North Pole. The scientists have always known this." According to Molion, CFC banning benefited large corporations that produced its replacements, and it happened because of economic interests, since CFC patents were about to expire.

IPCC (Climate Panel) cannot be trusted, since most of its researchers are from other areas of knowledge, that have no relation to climate studies. Moreover, there is an effective censorship against those who disagree with the consensus. According to Ercília Steinke, a Geographer of UNB (University of Brasília, another one of Brazil's main universities), if someone makes a study questioning climate change, they are unlikely to be financed.

Climate change can be explained by a natural cycle, and "warmists" ignore several causes, such as the sun.

No warming since 2001.

Ice naturally melts and regenerates, most data from ice melt is from the end of the summer, and it forms again after it.

Climate change is considered a right-wing capitalist/imperialist ideology/agenda. "Warmists" such as Al Gore are known to profit from this idea using emotional arguments, such as videos of polar bears on melting ice, without presenting solid evidence. From a Marxist historical materialist perspective, it can be said that material relations (the infrastructure, or "base", according to Marx) prevail over the superstructure (ideology, laws, culture, etc.). The role of ideology is legitimizing the infrastructure. If past regimes have used God to sustain the economic system, such as absolute monarchy, global warming is a legitimizing ideology of late stage capitalism. Large corporations promote a "green consciousness" and sell "ecologically correct products" to stimulate consumption defend the idea of a "sustainable development" as an international consensus. CFC banning is an example of this, since it had economic interests. Therefore, it's a tool used by industrialized (imperialist) nations to keep client markets in underdeveloped countries and prevent them from industrializing and developing (which would increase global warming) through Carbon emission trading. Behind global warming, there are great economic interests from large corporations. The huge debate around "the lie known as global warming" prevents discussion about issues that really matter such as poverty, health and education.

I'm linking some scientific studies in Portuguese by Brazilian climate skeptics. Unfortunately, I don't think there are English versions.

Disconcerting -- I wonder how much of it is uniquely Brazilian, or just the trash output by the US climate-skeptic media machine. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the arguments they're spouting look like PRATTs reheated from the denialist campaigns of American free-market think tanks, but the last one is where it gets interesting. In the West, and in the Anglosphere especially, climate change denialism and anti-environmentalism in general are almost exclusively the domain of right-wing capitalists, to the point where it is arguably the best litmus test of one's politics that exists. However, I wonder if things look different in the developing world. I remember reading somewhere that there was a wave of denialism in China in the early 2010s, around the time of the failed Copenhagen agreement, driven mainly by a belief that climate change was a Western myth promoted to keep the Third World, and booming China especially, down — the inverse of Donald Trump's opinions about the subject, if you will. Obviously, they've backtracked on that now that they're facing the consequences of unchecked environmental destruction, with Beijing now embracing green energy and trying to wind down coal consumption, but it shouldn't be surprising to see it crop up in other developing countries that aren't as far along that path as China is.

I also wonder what the environmental movement might look like today had it stayed focused on just conservationism instead of taking the environmental justice path in the '70s and '80s. Historically, the conservationists could get quite reactionary on the subject of race and immigration, largely driven by fear of overpopulation. Edward Abbey expressed some outstandingly racist views about Latin American immigrants, John Tanton started out with the Sierra Club before migrating to nativism, and while said Sierra Club nowadays is a firmly progressive organization, they used to have a vocal anti-immigrant (or "population stabilization") wing as late as 2004. While nativism has been essentially driven out of the environmental movement over the last thirty years or so, a scenario in which they remained a major force would likely provoke an anti-environmental backlash from the left. Lyndon LaRouche's anti-environmentalism was also originally derived from a Marxist, anti-imperialist perspective, claiming that it's a tool of the British royals (his pet bogeyman) to depopulate the planet; he's been consistent on banging that drum whether he's positioned himself as a leftist or a right-winger. KevinR1990 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

So the natural consequences a covfefe-centered political philosophy is the disdurnation of coordinated press surcats. This represents a serious problem for anyone trying to organize a covfefe counter postrum. If you were the president, how would you address the increasing pojtors? ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 14:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I still have never headquartered or twittered. Presidential tweets are only covered because old people don't have Twitter. I mean, if everyone had Twitter why would a tweet be news? Coverage of a mistweet really only resonates as a positive in the Trump voting bloc.

I mean, the wiki page here doesn't seem to do a good job of proving his points wrong. What if civilization is a mistake and we are just slaves to technology? Also isn't it science and civilization that is responsible for the environment being the way it is? — Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs

He was right about some injustices of 21st century life, and wrong about others, and murdered people in a hopeless crusade to promote his ideology. I'd honestly say that's not entirely different from Osama Bin Laden in that whether he had a good point or two buried in his beliefs is basically irrelevant to his infamy. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 22:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Many of the ills the Unabomber attributed to the Industrial Revolution were in fact caused by the Neolithic Revolution some time before, though industrialism didn't help, and finance capital helped even less. Human societies can't be built around money, because we're programmed to build human societies, but not for the "laws" of economics or finance. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So he was wrong about modern society but right in an indirect way? Does that mean he's right about going back to hunter gatherer tribes? Doesn't seem like a fix to me since history would just repeat itself at that point. But then, are we truly enslaved to technology? Or is tech just part of being human? Machina (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, we became slaves to technology long ago, when we took up agriculture and human societies became larger and acquired more tiers of social status. Voluntary reversion to hunter-gatherer became impossible right about then. You couldn't feed or house the larger agricultural population, and the elites who controlled the agricultural societies wouldn't allow it. So people who practiced agriculture found themselves trapped by it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying he was right? It's it really that awful that we are slaves to it? Then would going back to hunting and gathering be the right thing to do? It seems like those who support him think that the numbers that would die as a result would be worth the transition. On an unrelated note: do the users who write the articles here read all the sources that they cite? Machina (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, he wasn't right; the Industrial Revolution made things worse, to be sure, but the real problem as noted started with agriculture. Fortunately, intelligent life is a self-limiting phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess what I am referring to is more like the moral argument he was making. That going back to hunter and gatherer society would solve our problems. That technology is evil and the result of our issues. I wanted to know your and others thoughts on that. Would that really make things better? Or are we just turning the clock to repeat history again? I mean it seems to me like you agree with him but still use a computer (from what I get on your profile and history, though I'm likely wrong there). Machina (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with him to the extent that I'm not in favor of mailing bombs to computer scientists. I don't think that reverting to hunter/gatherer is feasible either. It would require a massive cull of the human population; something I think is biologically inevitable, but am not looking forward to either. My preferred solution is to start treating money like an invasive species that needs to be controlled, because without adequate controls it tends to dominate cultural 'ecosystems' it gets established in. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What about the psychological points he makes? Also if you agree with him then why use a computer and other technology? Isn't that hypocritical? Why not revert now to hunter gatherer if the cull is inevitable? How would you control money? It seems to me that technology itself is neutral and that if anything our misuse of it is just showing our flawed nature. It's man's fault not the technology. Machina (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

He's trivially right about leftist psychology, but right wing psychology has the same tendencies. Almost all activism comes from a core of hate-your-neighborism, an inability to accept the inevitable. I do think governments should intervene to protect settled ways of life, including jobs that are threatened by technology. "Agility" and "disruption" are enemies of the human race and should be treated as such. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at and I don't think that answers my question. Like if you agree with him why continue to use the computer and live with society? Also about not reverting (not that I want to) sooner? Machina (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Like what exactly? What was he right and wrong about? — Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs

oh I don't know know maybe the part were he killed people. I think he played to mach D&D 'The Wars of Law and Chaos'. 2d4chanfag (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of Osama's complaints were bullshit of the worst form. For example, Al Qaeda was complaining about the poor starving Iraqi children, when the Sunni children were fine and it was the Shia children who were starving and for the most part, Al Qaeda wouldn't mind if the Shia all died. CorruptUser (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, but he also quite correctly pointed out that American military interventionism was killing people and Americans don't care. You don't have to give him any credit for arriving at an obviously true sentiment, but even unhinged radicals tend to incorporate valid points among their crazy and unreasonable ones. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What about his psychological arguments? I don't fully know them but it seemed like it was certered around strength and freedom, some people even say that people had more job freedom before industrialization. That technology was more efficient back then. Machina (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

some people might say that, but some people would be wrong. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Surely David Gerard could do something? What is it that only Trent can do? Christopher (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems that this discussion comes up every couple of months or so. Bongolian (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As I just posted to the tech support page: In technical terms RationalWiki is a ghost wiki - 1.19 ahoy! Was someone going to rewrite the WIGO extension to work with 1.27? Wasn't me, and nobody else has stepped up; and we don't have SSL because I don't have load balancer access - and Trent hasn't answered my email in literally months. So I quit long ago and only bother fixing stuff when it's literally completely broken and easy because I still happen to have root. I have given up regarding this stuff as my personal problem - you know why there were no RMF meetings in 2015? It's 'cos literally nobody else elected took on the job of secretary, and I was already sick of turning the crank. Now we have an RMF board who show up, there's a great big blocker on the process of getting it out from under Trent, and it's called Trent. He wants to give it up, but he has to do the basic shit first. The blog doesn't work because he let the domain expire. I gave up bothering a year or so ago - David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

He's embarrassed about what you did to the site DG and feels it is irrecoverable. 120.16.129.102 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the site's name is still RationalWiki.;)-【﻿ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't resolving this be something for the RMF Trustees to figure out? Bongolian (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite confused. Trent has Facebook? Doesn't he answer direct messsages on that? Sorry, I can not help that much as I am only literally starting to learn programming; aka so I can't update the WIGO extension. Carpetsmoker has a WIGO extension as you well know. I think I can try to help out with "converting stuff from table format A to table format B." ClickerClock (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not set up a new website that you do have control over and move all the content and community there? Make sure all the relevant people have access from day one. Kind of like years ago where Wikitravel got sick of their hosts and moved the site over to WikiVoyage. Of course, they hit the jackpot of getting the WMF to host them, so they never have to worry about hosting or fundraising again. 87.192.220.205 (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You can ask any chaner that has done the same thing with any Chan#. Its not ez and alot of time investment. 2d4chanfag (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thought I'd introduce some light humor here from a pretty loony place (note that this guy thinks Charles Manson is some kind of sage). Edit: Ok the page doesn't exist anymore, but the general theme was that he thinks pets are slaves and that humans have them as slaves because we ourselves are slaves.

And looking at the front page, wow is this guy a goldmine. The Charles Manson worship (found here, for the record) doesn't even begin to cover it; right now, on the front page alone, you can find articles referring to the Manila casino shooter, the Manchester concert bomber, and Omar Mateen as 'martyrs' fighting against the tyranny of Western society, as well as this lovely article in which he glorifies murder for its own sake and says that the only problem with it is that, if you do it, nobody will take your ideas seriously. Oh, and I haven't even gotten to his manifesto yet. This is some of the funniest stuff I've ever read. KevinR1990 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How often 'purveyors of 'forbidden and/or hidden truth' reiterate the same material, much of which can be found in the public domain if you go looking for it - suffused with the same fantasies, and considering themselves 'legends in their own mind-(uni)verse.' 31.49.115.240 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the primary method of acquiring that illness. Failure to wash hands after interacting with cat waste is. No, the bigger risk for a bite is "cat scratch fever", because evolved killing machines and their microscopic allies. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 21:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that's the kind of real lightening up I like. Wash your hands. Especially if you get bit by anything. Bacteria Is the most efficient life form, on my kinda Ramirez scale. We may be no better than bacteria, but we have dreams, Con Sarnitt! Cats and bacteria, cat scratch fever is all the proof you need. Brilliant.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been through a variety of things on the internet and some "alternative" pages as well. They seem to think society is crazy (the same people who stand behind Manson and the Unabomber).

Examples include: environment and it's destruction, money, deviation from evolution (like apparently technology is evil and we should go back to nature like we were meant to), locking people up for pot, billboards replacing trees, the culture restricts us and our self expression, war, the conditions of prison and prison itself, the media twisting truths and "keeping the sheep dull", hostility towards each other, government in general and intelligence agencies, that humans have become a slave to the world they built for themselves and the trinkets the enjoy (you get the idea).

I don't know how true any of that is to be honest, but it makes me wonder about society and if things are as alright as we think them to be. Machina (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been going on for as long as civilization has existed. Maybe it's not society, but just all humans being irrational monsters with violent streaks throughout their history. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're touching on a lot. Personally I see our society ("western" society, if you will, or the globalized civilization in general) as misguided and short-sighted. Crazy? Potentially, but not "burn it all down" crazy that some people seem to have. A lot of the things you posted are more hard-green naturalism, which I don't personally subscribe to. I do think the destruction of the environment (more particularly the atmosphere and burning the Amazon for cow pastures than strip-mines) is a huge issue, the former because of long-term habitability, the latter because I think biodiversity's a good thing, and we could be losing dozens of penicillin-esque discoveries by wantonly destroying things. But that's related to the short-sightedness of our civilization.

The media, especially in the US, does play a part, as they're often run by short-sighted people same as the governments are. They're certainly getting paid enough to assume they don't need to worry about their grandchildrens' safety, since they'll be able to afford food even if the climate does go to hell, etc. I also don't see government as a problem, though there are problems with governments that can and should be fixed (corruption, e.g.). Government, like technology, isn't inherently evil or bad, and should be fixed/used for good rather than outright destroyed.

So in answer to your question, no I don't think society is crazy. A bit broken, sure, but nothing that can't be fixed. At least, as it stands. -- Onychoprion (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Society is crazy indeed (well, I think so), though technology is not the problem and anarcho-primitivism is definitively the solution. People don't seem to give human lives any value. There are people happy to see homeless people having their welfare cut because of alcoholism; when a company's marketing tactics end up in babies dying, they'll defend the company by asking question such as "do you want unemployment ?" (it's like corporations are gods or something). There are people telling that we shouldn't waste money on refugees and spend it on the homeless instead, and then will say to the homeless people that they're lazy and should get a job. People just don't care about others.

But no, the problem isn't technology though, and I don't see what could be a solution. Diacelium (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

i dislike the sentiment of 'society is crazy'. it smacks of arrogance. that if only people would listen to me then everyone then thing would be rosy. there are certainly issues but you cant address them without convincing people of the solutions. you are not going to convince if your first thought is that everything everyone is crazy, that they are racist, that they are stupid, they dont know whats good for them. its no different to believing you are the only free thinker in a world of sheeple. its facile and merely justifies to yourself the failure to persuade. we've seen it with brexit and we've seen it with trump - its all the others fault while we downplay the hope and fears of the people we claim to be for at same time deriding their their racism and stupidity. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Some aspects of society-as-it-is will always be crazy, broken, include people with outdated views/who do not like 'the other' etc - and some of the 'craziness' is just the normal froth of views being aired to see whether they are viable, to start 'debates' etc - and some of it is 'when did society change from what I am familiar with?'. 86.146.100.83 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm better than others. I don't mean that other people are stupid, racist, or anything else. I'm saying "society" (which I am part of) is crazy, and I don't blame people for that, but more institutions, the economic system, the mediatic system etc... I think society needs to be changed, though I don't see how. But I'm not being arrogant, I don't think I'm above others, smarter than others. Diacelium (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of the cite (weirdly and troublingly enough) Manson: "We're all our own prisons, we are each all our own wardens and we do our own time. I can't judge anyone else. What other people do is not really my affair unless they approach me with it. Prison's in your mind. Can't you see I'm free?" It seems like the quote makes sense. Machina (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going to charge atheists - virtually all of us here - with a serious accusation. There's a bug infecting their system known as the agnostic view. It is the belief that namely we can never be entirely, 100% sure that there's no sentient force in charge of our destinies (theism) or overseeing the cosmos in apathy (deism). That is 100% wrong. The evidence for theism or deism is likewise equal to zero and therefore we can rest 100% assured that no God whatsoever exists. It is moreover 100% within our human capabilities of reason to come 100% clear on this fact. Whoever maintains a view to the contrary is in essence affirming his faith to have faith in unseen possibilities. The view that God and religion are 100% human creations can never ever be refuted on a scientific basis. Your miserable attempts to cut God a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% slack are 100% astray of the path where logic itself, i.e. the dynamic of human reasoning wedges us. The reason you are confusing your 100% illogical arguments for 100% logical is for the same reason that when we are sleeping and dreaming we cannot pick apart our dream from reality. Well, wake up. There's 100% no God! Fear not to say so dumbass! --Gewgtweg (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The eidence for the existence of extraterrestrial existence is akin to 0, so we can rest 100% assured that there is no extraterrestrial life.

Lack of evidence is not evidence for inexistance, therefore agnosticism is the most logical opinion. Diacelium (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Er, unlike God, extraterrestrial existence is highly plausible. God is a flying logical contradiction. I subscribe to Occam's razor when it comes to God; why assume it exists when there is nothing going for its existence? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What on Earth are you actually trying to say? Christopher (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that agnosticism is bullshit fool. Proving with absolute certainty that there's no God is logically legit and possible. --Gewgtweg (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lefty only the modern abrahamic conception of God is a flying contradiction. If you weaken the requirements, e.g. God is not omni benevolent nor omnipotent, he doesn't always tell the truth, etc, the possibility for God or gods increases greatly. There's probably a galaxy out there with aliens that can (with lots of effort) create designer planets. While God in the bible created "everything", to a desert swelling nomad, creating an entire world is effectively the same as being God. StickySock (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The bible doesn't feature a benevolent God however you put it. He doesn't take kindly to the people he's pissed with for whatever reason. But anyway, looking beyond the Abrahamic God and into the nature of religion in general which is universal to all peoples we can agree I believe that a divine force is principally something with control over human destiny. It is something that can work in your favor if you pay homage or something that can destroy you if you are disrespectful. It is something that secures you a place in another better life after death or which otherwise condemns you to postmortem oblivion, suffering or whatever. In other words, the notion of super-human, divine forces and magic are inextricably related. All arguments we here are wont to employ in favor of atheism PROVE not just that God and magic are unlikely but that in fact THEY DO NOT EXIST. They are human fictions, relevant only in the human experience as the stuff of ideas but with no ontological existence. No StickySock! What you are describing doesn't qualify as the existence of divinity. It simply proves that high-end technology cannot be distinguished from magic by the uneducated, untrained ape mind. Although, I'm afraid that you're confusing technology with magic yourself there. Just because it can be dreamed doesn't mean it can be done. --Gewgtweg (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

its a pity that your much vaunted logic comes across as 'he said, she said'. ive always thought that religous belief is meant to go beyond logic and reason. Miracles defying the laws of physics because they are just that, miracles. belief in higher power doesnt require logical proofs because it defies logic and the mundane. the same way atheism doesnt require proofs to disbelieve in god. you just need to not believe. proofs for or against god convince no one but the already converted. intellectual masterbation. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If God didn't punish nor reward, that is a completely apathetic deity when it comes to humanity, he'd still be God. That's kind of what deism is all about, where there was a creator but just sat back with some brewskis to watch what resulted. But again, the modern abrahamic version of God is mired in contradiction, but not necessarily the idea of aliens that are so powerful and advanced that they could effectively be gods by moving the stars and creating paradise planets. Even by your definition it's still easy to just have one of those aliens show up and help or harm humanity depending on how hard we grovel. Afterlife? Do good and we will copy your brain into the supercomputer, where you'll live forever amongst the better porn files. StickySock (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay What you said just proves that man is capable (indeed it's his standard practice) in his ape mind of believing everything fathomable if only he decides to. Still, that indisputable fact (which you and I do both acknowledge as such but which is not as self-evident for all) doesn't imply that everything has equal truth value or that there's no meaning or merit to the use of arguments in search of truth. Arguments are never born equal because neither knowledge nor perception are equal in all humans. Some have superior knowledge and others inferior knowledge. Some have a superior perception when it comes to establishing truth and others have a weaker perception when it comes to establishing truth. I can never accept for example that a social scientist knows less about the social reality of human beings than a prophet or cult acolyte. I can never accept that people that might either be deluded by wilful ignorance or else that might be self-serving charlatans like holocaust or climate deniers have to offer arguments of equal value to the opposing views. NO! NO! NO! It's objectively possible to PROVE that their views are untruthful. The claims of human superstition denoted under the umbrella term religion CAN be disproved JUST AS WELL as the claims of every ignoramus or charlatan. A study of evolution, a study of human history, a study on the nature of philosophy and religion, a study on man's psyche can all yield THE SAME unequivocal result when it comes to man's age-old superstitions. THERE IS NO GOD AND THERE IS NO MAGIC. THE UNIVERSE IS ATHEISTIC. IT EXISTS AND CAME TO BEING WITHOUT BEING WILLED TO BY WHAT WE HUMANS WOULD ABSTRACTLY CALL AN ENTITY.--Gewgtweg (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. There is no God. There is no right and wrong. Now, you tell me right and wrong is determined by a common sense consensus of ethical atheists. I say bullshit. I say right and wrong is determined by my god, call him Allah or Satan or whatever, and my God orders me to exterminate you and your ilk. And if you think truth, or collective moral judgements about the governing of humanity is determined by a democratic consensus of self-appointed ethicists and do-gooders, again I say bullshit. We got you beat. There's whole fuck of a lot more Allah and Satan worshippers walking around this planet than a handful of enlightened intellectuals who think we're full of shit. nobs 07:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think nobs illustrated exactly what the problem is with fundamentalism, as with "my God orders me to exterminate you and your ilk." he showed exactly how Is thinks about the suject, they talk as if what the book said they have to do according to their interpretation mattered at all. Anyway I tend to think, to simplify, good tends to come from a balnace of power, the highest possible share of freedom and happiness without disadvantaging anyone in favor of other ones or another cathegory. Basically everything that creates classes and chastes. They only disadvantage that should result should be a lack of privilege, not to say I agree in the "sjw" privilege theory, at least not with the linear, splitting, and black and white veriosn of it. The problem with religious extremism is that it creates the "splitting", neat ingrouping and outgrouping, which might well be part of the so called "evil", as it assumes about people on the basis of not sharing beliefs and rituals, not how they behave and how they get along with others or contribute to the society, which is objectively a logically wrong way to discriminate (meaning the act of distincting).--78.15.214.86 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is lack of definition in the word "God". Every theist seems to have a different one. It's easy to define "god" in such a way that it must exist. "God is the universe", "God is Love", "God is my coffee cup". The universe, love and my coffee cup exist. So if one of those is your sole definition with no other attributes then god exists, as we can test the existence of these things empirically.

On the other hand if your "god" miraculously answers every prayer you make then this can also be tested. You can pray for things and we can test the outcome.

nobs And who the fuck told you that I hold right and wrong to be 'determined by a common sense consensus' you retard? Tell your God to kiss my filthy, stinking ass. You are RW's laughingstock-in-chief. --Gewgtweg (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Bob_M Yeah, but asking if there's evidence is simply a rhetorical question. We know there isn't any. And complete lack of evidence is in this case the same as verified non-existence. Therefore the agnostic position is untenable on a scientific basis. --Gewgtweg (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A god could quite easily choose not to reveal himself to humanity, I'm still waiting for that logical proof. Christopher (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gewgtweg, ok, so there is no God, there is no rational demoratic consensus to determine right and wrong or definition of murder, so justice and virtue is determined by a flip of a coin. Thank the god of atheism for bringing us all out of darkness. nobs 20:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not all atheists are rational, some could believe that fairies dictate what is right or wrong. The God of atheism? Really? Christopher (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

From a biblical perspective, atheists are viewed as proud sinners; from a secular perspective as intellectual snobs and anarchists. It is unlikely any human society will ever adopt their self-amusing ramblings as a basis to form any civilization around, and they will always remain on the fringes of society. nobs 23:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@nobs If you pulled your head out of your ass for a second you might realize that many countries in Europe are actually majority atheist. Does that make atheism a marginal view in society for you? You might also recall that in the Soviet Empire atheism was sponsored by the state. Say what you want about the communists but if someone had not knocked forcefully the superstition and backwardness out of those Russian peasants they would never have become the world power they became and remain today. And by the way, I am not sure in what kind of society you think you live in your twisted worldview but modern America doesn't give a fuck about religion. Consumerism is our God and traditional moral values mean shit. In our God-fearing country porn is (and was) more than widespread. In godless Soviet Russia it was prohibited.

And nope, there is NO such thing as right or wrong objectively looked at. Many consider sweat shops and modern slavery wrong but it is what allows our advanced consumerist societies to grant the freedoms and social safety net that many deem is absolutely right to have. Some consider the murder of convicts on the death row to be right and just and others wrong and barbaric. So yes, there are countless examples that show that moral relativism is the actual state of affairs in the world I live in. What goes on in the parallel world you live in is another matter. --Gewgtweg (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were specifically discussing the existence or non-existence of a non-human spirit being accredited with bringing matter and energy into existence. Pornography and religion have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of discussion on either side of the debate. Secondly, I specifically referred to the formation of a society or civilization, not one that is tattered and on the verge of extinction, or in process of merging with another. And the example you cite, the USSR, bolsters my position. They tried to create a goddess society. It failed. nobs 01:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gewgtweg "Many consider sweat shops and modern slavery wrong but it is what allows our advanced consumerist societies to grant the freedoms and social safety net that many deem is absolutely right to have." Citation needed, I might say, show me how slavery is necessary for anything other than concentrating the wealth at the hand of exploiter and actually proportionally benefiting the whole host of the empoverished western layer of society. I don't think their lack of right is necessary to their well being. You risk proving nobs right if he actually cared about this topic and wasn't undecided between using it to prove his point or discarding it because, you know, fairness reeks of communism too much (and in fact he focused on the Ussr oppression and pornography, for his rebuttal, not on sweat shops).--78.15.214.86 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically, we are agnostics about everything, for the reasons already stated. But for some reason people don't call themsleves agnostic about invisible unicorns and teacups in space, even though they very well have no means of proving those things do not exist. The only time the distinction between a[position]ism and agnosticism regarding that position is when it's God. I personally suspect it's some sort of deep seated sympathy for the theistic worldview, or perhaps a means of finding 'common ground' with theists by method of sophistry. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@nobs We weren't discussing that at all. The point of the debate is whether agnosticism is bullshit, i.e. whether if it's logically right to insist that we cannot be 100% sure that God doesn't exist and stated my view that agnosticism is wrong. Obviously I asked this question from an atheistic point of view and expected to see the opinions of non-religious people which is virtually everyone here. You, being the odd one out, don't belong to that category. At any rate, I was compelled to answer the false view that atheism is doomed to the margins of society. It's not. Go around Europe and figure that out yourself. Atheists there in many places score a majority. The Soviet Union existed for almost a century and survived many tribulations since its birth. It didn't overcome those only to collapse because the Politburo was skipping church. --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lord Aeonian We are not agnostics about everything. We cannot afford to if we're going to have any identity at all in society. Having an identity entails taking meaningful positions. We don't say "I dunno" only when it's about God, we say it all the time in the most varied contexts. But agnostics don't just say "I dunno". They insist that saying "I dunno" is the ONLY logical response. I call bullshit. Knowing there's no God is not a statement we make in arrogance. It's a statement made because we DO know that religion is a complex creation of man alone. --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Gewgtweg, as has been mentioned before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are numerous countless possibilities for a deity to exist and yet we have no evidence for such a being. The Diestic god is the obvious example: an immortal sentient being that set up the universe's initial conditions and hasn't, doesn't, or can't interfere since then. Such a universe would be indistinguishable from ours, since predictive physics breaks down very close to the big bang. Or a universe that was made from scratch last Thursday, and will be destroyed on Thursday, but the being who did/will do this built the universe merely to appear ancient and natural to test your critical thinking skills.

In either case there would be no evidence we could gather for the existence of such a god, and yet the god would absolutely exist.

What we have is a universe that appears to be natural, and a present that is the result of natural forces acting on natural things over time. While there's isn't an obvious god-shaped hole in the universe, that doesn't mean such a being doesn't exist. Even if it has no impact on the universe, and would thus be as effective as non-existance, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A primitive civilization in a galaxy just over the cosmic horizon wouldn't affect us either, and we have no evidence for such a thing, but that doesn't prove that such a civilization doesn't exist.

To put it another way Aristotle, to pick a name at random, had 0 evidence for the existence of gravity waves. And with the tools and knowledge available to him, he couldn't devise an experiment to gather evidence for or against invisible waves that can pass through visibly-opaque objects. He had 0 evidence for gravity waves, gravity waves absolutely exist, and unless we're very wrong about the universe, they existed at Aristotle's time too.

In truth, we can't say definitively that no gods exist. We can say that, so far as we know right now, gods may as well not exist for all the impact they have on the observable universe, but that's not the same as non-existence. Just because we can't detect Carl Sagan's garage-dragon doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Microwaves were a Sagan Dragon for the majority of human history. Onychoprion (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gewgtweg What you said about "having no identity" is an appeal to consequences and a dubious one at best, since it reeks of emotional language. What I am saying is that for almost all intents and purposes, an agnostic position is equivalent, and in fact synonymous to, a negative position. The core lesson of Russel's teapot and so on is the nature of evidence based epistemology, which is a function of proofs and not disproofs. There is no burden of proof for a negative position, by definition, and there are very few negative positions which can proven. For everything else, we are "agnostic," and we assume the negative position with regards to the position until shown otherwise. This should led us to claim atheism rather than agnosticism about God. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Onychoprion I beg to differ. Carl Sagan's dragon doesn't exist. Existing as an ideal construct in the human mind and ontologically existing are not the same thing. Creatures like the garage dragon and the flying spaghetti monster prove only one thing. That namely God is every bit as fictitious as they are though no person in his right mind (apart from Onychoprion who apparently is in his right mind. Yep, of course, of course) would consider those creatures anything but human imagination at work. Humans created God so as to provide meaning to the world. A deistic God guarantees the orderly function of the world and hence its continued existence. Not interfering means no virgin births, no answering prayers etc. Deism is a philosophy whose obvious connections to the age of religious wars in Europe is silly to overlook and which onychoprion in his right mind... overlooks.

What you just proved is that it's possible for people not to be aware of things. Indeed many people (a world majority) are not aware that God is fictitious just as many are not aware that the US constitution is not something like a god-ordained document. That doesn't alone prove that divinities do exist or that the US constitution was the work of God. To allow for the 'possibility' of a deistic God concrete proof is required. Why would a deistic God create a universe so disorderly and chaotic and how would that God have come to exist? If the deistic God's own creation was not required and thus spawned automatically like a video-game cheat code then why wouldn't an ex nihilo universe be in fact far more likely than a self-created God?

I would say that a primitive civilization is an oxymoron. Civilizations arose only when primitivism ended thanks to agricultural surpluses. Where no civilization exists we just have a culture. Personally I hold to the minority view that no sort of civilization or culture existed or has existed anywhere in the universe. There exists a minority of social species in the animal kingdom but humans are the only cultural animals. Nothing but humans could create a culture let alone a civilization. Since it took billions for us to appear, odds are that naturally no humans could exist anywhere else and hence no extraterrestrial cultures or civilizations. --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lord Aeonian My lord, I do not understand what seemed like an appeal to consequences or emotional language to you. Please explain that point. Russel's epistemology is naive. No burden of proof for a negative position? That's totally absurd. If I told you that the holocaust DIDN'T happen does that mean I am not burdened with proving this because it's a negative position? If I told you that the pyramids were NOT constructed by human beings does that mean nobody can rebuff my bullshit? Whether positions are positively or negatively formed is totally irrelevant. Positive and negative assertions are in fact implicit in every proposition. We aren't atheists because we assume atheism. We are atheists because the universe is evidently atheistically structured. --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Gwetweg, I never said Sagan's garage-dragon or the FSM weren't a product of human imagination. Though keep in mind Newton's Law of Gravity is also a product of human imagination. And in a way your entire perception of the universe is a product of your imagination, since your brain has to build models of the universe based only on sensory inputs. What I did was pose two theoretical universes which, if you were to live in them would a) be indistinguishable from the one we actually live in and b) have a god. And I say "god" with a lowercase-g because I'm talking about a generic diety, whereas you seem to be stuck on YHWH. The origins or motivations of whatever god might exist are also beside the point. We don't know how the universe came to be, yet it almost certainly exists. I don't understand the motivations of someone who enjoys caviar or doesn't enjoy tea, but such people exist and do those things.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to prove that such a god exists, just that there are conceivable universes in which a god could exist without there being evidence for its existence. And because such things are possible, then the mere lack of evidence for a god doesn't mean the god doesn't exist. Nobody can prove we don't live in a Last Thursdayism universe, because it's inherently unfalsifiable. To claim to absolutely 100% know no gods exist is as silly as claiming you've squared the circle, or developed a strong number theory that can prove all true statements or written a program that can say whether a given program will eventually stop given specific inputs. Maybe some time in the future we will manage to come up with definitive proof against Last Thursdayism, and all of the other countless possible universes that contain a god without evidence for said god. Or maybe we'll discover this is all an ancestor simulation of the real universe nearing its heat-death, or maybe the universe will come to a crashing end when we synthesize an amount of element-133 because some advanced beings created a universe supportive of life in the hopes that that life would eventually create element-133, which they could extract and use for their own devices in the same way we cultivate mold to extract penicillin. But, again, such scenarios are, at least currently, unfalsifiable. You can assert all you want that no gods exist, but you have exactly as much evidence for that claim as someone saying the opposite. Onychoprion (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Onychoprion Do you and I exist beyond our imagination? Well I don't know about you but I do. Of course the only reason I'm aware of my existence is that I am a human (at least I believe so) and therefore capable thanks to the human specific software I carry within my skull to take note of my existence in a way that animals cannot. I suppose that lizards exist too but they just don't give much of a damn about it. As a human I am capable of having an identity. A lizard is unable to have that. I'll cease having any sensory perception after death and then I will exist no more. So my existence is real but relative.

Gravity is just imaginary? Well, I guess if I jump off a cliff my death will be imaginary. Without gravity the universe itself would not be possible so gravity is as real as the universe and the law of gravity is as real as an abstraction can be. Abstraction is not the same thing as not real.

Well, I do understand the motivations of people who enjoy sex, do you? A god is by definition anthropomorphic and as such he always has motives. Even the imaginary beings you concoct in your scenarios have understandable motivations. An atheistic universe posits no motivation behind its existence. It came from nothing and for no reason at all.

The only people that take absurdist ideas like Last Thursdayism seriously are geeks. The reason for that has to do with their culture. Likewise, the only people who take gods seriously are the Asatru cult and the like. It's not a fuckin' hypothesis that has led them to believe what they believe. It's cultural indoctrination (and in the case of Asatru it's weak-mindedness and stupidity as well).

I take it you are using unfalsifiable synonymously with random bullshit only professional bullshitters like theoretical physicists and philosophers take seriously.

Really? An Asatru cult has as much evidence for their gods as I? To claim I know that they are silly ape fantasies is unjustified? Jesus Christ. Is this a rationalist website or this is just an illusion some extraterrestrial is pulling on me? Well, I guess that's a decent theory but simply unfalsifiable. --Gewgtweg (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Gewgtweg, I'd be careful in assuming only humans have self-awareness (or even culture), but I'll not get into that conversation here as it's a whole other can of worms. I also never said gravity is just imaginary. I said Newton's Law of Gravitation is a product of human imagination. The Law is the mathematical description of how gravity behaves over a specific domain of inputs. Relativity is also a product of human imagination that models gravity over a more general domain, but it's no more real than Newton's Law of Gravitation, in that particles don't "know" the mathematics, any more than an oak tree "knows" its leaves are green. Such descriptions come from us.

I actually don't understand the motivations of people who enjoy sex, but again that's a whole other can of worms. And gods are no more required to be anthropomorphic than anything else. It's just that historically gods have been anthropomorphized, but in the same vein so have trees, air, the sun, and pet cats. Once again you seem to be limit your argument of "there are no gods" to "the gods humans have historically believed in don't exist" which are two different statements. One could make a valid effort at going through the list of gods and disprove each one individually, in which case have at it. However, your claim was that "there's no sentient force in charge of our destinies (theism) or overseeing the cosmos in apathy (deism)." No specification of historical dieties, which opens your claim to gods like the beings that might create a universe in a bottle, or a simulation, or the You in Last Thursdayism, all of which can be non-falsifiable.

As for all of my scenarios involving dieties with motives, that's because you specifically asked what their motives would be: "Why would a deistic God create a universe so disorderly and chaotic and how would that God have come to exist?".

Also the probability of us being in such universes isn't proportional to the number of people who believe in them. It doesn't matter if nobody takes Last Thursdayism seriously; it still could be the truth, and there's no way to know. I can't iterate enough that if Last Thursdayism were true, or this was all a simulation, or a created universe for the sole purpose of producing element-133, everything would behave exactly as it does right now. You can say it's ridiculous, but that's not how logic works.

"I take it you are using unfalsifiable synonymously with random bullshit only professional bullshitters like theoretical physicists and philosophers take seriously." No, I'm using unfalsifiable to mean that which is not falsifiable. Which no conceivable experiment we can do could prove one way or another. These scenarios may sound like bullshit, but you can't prove them wrong. Without empirically disproving Last Thursdayism and all of the other countless ways in which a diety would exist without us having yet found evidence, you cannot say truthfully say "there's no sentient force in charge of our destinies (theism) or overseeing the cosmos in apathy (deism). Onychoprion (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Onychorpion I didn't suggest only humans have self-awareness. Humans have uniquely among all animals I'm aware of an identity. A certain sensory awareness of self is common to all complex organisms. Our personal immediate feelings of sexual arousal, fright, aggression etc. are not all that different from those of a rat. Being social is common to many animals too besides man. I know however of no other being with cultural capabilities. Civilization wouldn't exist if we weren't beings with such cultural capabilities. Our late cousins of the genus homo were not that kind of beings.

Humans have sex for the same motivations driving a rat. We might be cultural animals which is something a rat could never be and yet we're still every bit as animals as our little friends at the lab.

A god is specifically fashioned in the image of man. This means that the godly being carries a sentience and an identity like men do. Things like the sun etc. have been worshiped not as persons but as symbols of a deity and hence its power (i.e. the Sun god) or the elements and indeed everything in the natural landscape has been worshiped in animistic religions as the holy manifestation of a godly order. It is important though to remember that there was always a series of deities behind that order to guarantee it. In other words, the animist bows before nature the same way a person from an occupied state is exhibiting deference to the troops and minions he greets in his immediate surroundings. By being fearful the animist tries to ingratiate himself so as to acquire power. Common fantasies of the high-tech era such as you describe and espouse essentially replace the ancient notion of magic with science fiction. The reason these fantasies are popular is for the same reason magic was popular in ancient times. The worshiper tries semi-consciously or unconsciously to understand and acquire the great power in nature.

We use abstractions to model reality which we do on a daily basis by the simple act of using human language. We use the word 'fruit' even though no such thing but an array of things under that name exists. But still abstractions can be defined as a reality-enhancing aid. Newton's laws are designed to help us calculate the effects of gravity more precisely. But abstractions are always based off fundamental realities. The force of gravity is so fundamental in nature that all animals are evolved to deal with its existence. God and gods or whatever are abstractions that reflect forces just as objective as gravity that are pulling on man's psyche. Divinities are nothing more than the abstractions he creates to represent those forces.

The reason I reject those examples is precisely their level of abstraction which them nothing more than intellectual games. Game theory is such an intellectual game. A fine way to entertain your mind. But to take the game seriously and forget it's a game is absurd. I do not mean absurd in a derogatory sense here. Religious doctrines were born in a complex process as intellectual games between gifted people fighting each other like we do by means of ideas. But they were taking games seriously and in time by the mediation of the 'normative power of the actual' huge groups of people came to identify with and make a fetish of them under more vulgar variations.

We come from different strands of thought and we will never agree. Lack of consensus is the final destiny of argument. It's impossible for either of us to prove the other wrong in the sense you understand the verb. That much I will agree with you. But while inability to reach consensus is always a given in an argument and no judge exists to declare a victor I'll remark that the side who is right so far as truth is concerned is the side which is more acquainted with the mechanism of human power. How do you become acquainted with that? The intellectual game is based on a constant tussle of logic that is maintained through variations in content. By becoming a virus of logic that blocks those variations from mutating you acquire the truth. I'm not talking gibberish. Power is relevant to absolutely everything a human does. It is relevant here as well in our little theoretical argument. You and my other opponents will win in the eyes of most people who read this. If we ask a general opinion you will see that they will corroborate this. For my part, I am assured that truth is on my side. Of course you will find it odd and ludicrous that I think I know that. But the impression of being odd and ridiculous and crazy and arrogant and spiteful is the impression that side with the historical or theoretical truth will tend to give in any argument. --Gewgtweg (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay, so you are talking only about historical gods, and not, as I quote, "there's no sentient force in charge of our destinies (theism) or overseeing the cosmos in apathy (deism)." In which case, I wish you the best of luck going through that list and disproving each one. I doubt that'd be too hard, since those gods tend to have contradictions or testable bits to them. I'm not sure what you're going on about human power or identity, but I'll leave you to that as well. I'm not really one to prop humans up on a dais and claim we're inherently special, since the more we learn about animal and machine intelligence, the less unique we seem to be. Take care, Gewgtweg! Onychoprion (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Deism has historical roots too. Somehow you assume that ancient historical gods are demonstrably refutable because of their contradictions but you don't see these contradictions in historical theism or in deism allegedly because the prospect of refuting those can only look forward to huge advances in knowledge or technology. My view is that a historical examination of those belief systems proves their absolute historical attachments and that to view them as something like 'hypotheses' is just silly Anglo-Saxon positivist philosophy. --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Gewbgtweg is now a fundie because of this discussion, it's getting a bit boring. Christopher (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Just kidding but you made a logical error. If this is getting really weird then it cannot possibly be getting boring at the same time... fool! --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it completely impossible or is there at least a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that something can be both weird and boring? Christopher (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Atheism requires no logical coherence, because, under most cases it does not actually make a claim. At best I'd say it characterizes a tendency to reject claims based on certain characteristics of the close claims. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think atheism characterises the tendency to reject or accept anything, when you've got both Richard Spencer and the Reverend in the same group of people you can't really characterise the group as doing anything. Christopher (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Except the specific tendency rejecting claims of divine beings with unsubstantiated metaphysical powers and/or moral authority. Which I'd argue is an umbrella requirement for what you don't believe to be an atheist. I haven't gone through and considered every permutation of concepts with that definition, so I'm not making a universal claim they don't exist, but rather I don't have a history of accepting claims they do, looking at all my past instances.

I don't know how many times this specific pedantry has been rehashed on the internet, but atheists are not obligated by traditional burdens of proof, to construct a purely logical, internally consistent worldview that no possible thing that might be defined as god exists. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@ikanreed Atheism does make a claim. Divinities are fictitious constructs. Your definition of atheism is hermeneutically useless. The point of the human thinking endeavor is to reject certain claims with certain characteristics in favor of others.

@Christopher the guy in his right mind That's right, atheism can fit into different worldview constructs. In my view I fit it into a nihilistic worldview. Spencer (although Nazism is known for mysticism and heathenist religious sympathies) probably understands his atheism within a survival of the fittest, might is right and biological inequality construct. Spencer and the Reverend have more in common with each other than they have with me. They're both normativists whereas I am a nihilist. --Gewgtweg (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right that atheists are not required to produce a single coherent worldview that no God exists. There are many varieties of belief opposed to each other that identify as secular and atheist. But then again religious worldviews are likewise very diverse. So I think it serves us better to divide views into two categories: Views that promote values (normative views) and views that are value free (nihilism). Normative views can variate indefinitely and may be developed logically or fallaciously. Value free views can potentially be logically inconsistent too. For example a nihilism that calls for the destruction of man is logically contradictory because if man is void of value then it becomes impossible to legitimize his destruction since that would necessitate a negative evaluation of man, hence a non-neutral evaluation.

Normativism means to unite Is and Ought. The Platonist idea of Good and the Christian God are nothing more than an anthropomorphic unification of the true Is and the true Ought. Normative ideas change throughout history because people give existing normative systems different possible logical twists, the result being a sort of evolutionary variation in ideas. What we call philosophy is merely the professional production of normative ideas resulting in higher quality normative product for the primary consumption of intellectuals and the second-hand, selective consumption of the professionals of power, i.e. the tyrants who could never become philosopher-kings as Plato envisaged. Normativism is the age-old struggle for existence by means of ideas. Without the use of ideas to guide them, humans cannot differentiate their status to that of other animals. --Gewgtweg (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's illustrate the point with a classic example. Christianity and Islam are totally different in their content but they share a structural similarity in that they're religious cultures. PC and Neo-Fascism are totally different in their content because one worships the idea of peace and the other of war. But they share structural similarities that classify both as sub-cultures. I don't belong in a sub-culture therefore I am equidistant to both whilst the two are facing each other directly in combat. Do I find racism unsavory and dumb? Of course. Do I see PC as a force that serves establishment interests fanning the flames of discontent that those dolts tap on? I am afraid so. But pay no attention to those autistic freaks. They live in an action-laden fantasy bubble. If the US turns against the majority of its citizens then I fear internal unrest would bring it to heel and its post-1991 status as the sole world superpower would end. Fascism is destined to be repeated because history repeats itself. But as just as a figure they despise correctly said history repeats itself as a farce only which is how we ended up with imbeciles like Trump and Farage. History's trolling us. --Gewgtweg (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You called me a mental patient, an idiot in a sense. What did you expect? To cozy up to you? To give you a nice handjob like a massive gay? Is that what you wanted? (Everything is meant a joke, moralizers please give me a break and don't start acting like fundamentalist Christian moderators. I know it feels good to be a power freak, but come on.) --Gewgtweg (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Gewgtweg maybe, just maybe, it's time to chill (read: silence yourself before you make everyone on this site an enemy). I can't be bothered to read this whole thing but hoping someone gets raped is crossing the line. I'll block you myself, mate. 锦鲤 (说) 00:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not that I take all this seriously and I was basically poking fun at his username but calling someone essentially a mental patient is a grave insult too which I didn't see you giving a moralizing damn about. --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Who called who a mental patient? Christopher (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you a fucking eye patient? Or did you maybe just receive a facial or something? Look a couple lines up. --Gewgtweg (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

so thats homophobia along with rape 'jokes' which is apparently cool with you. perhaps you need to re adjust your sense of proportion. and for the record, people who talk absolute frothing bullshit tend to have their mental state questioned. seriously go back on your meds.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Did it not occur to you bright fellow that you are actually making a mockery of homosexuality yourself by having that retarded username? If you are not willing to argue in detail go suck a massive donkey cock and don't whine about my harshness fool cause that's all you can expect from me. --Gewgtweg (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

hahaha i didnt realise i was dealing with a young oscar wilde. its not harshness that concerns me, such is life. its your banality AMassiveGay (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The view that agnosticism is bullshit is anything but banal. But your incapacity to move the fuck aside from threads you are not willing to engage seriously IS. --Gewgtweg (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

its best not to engage with the chap smearing the walls his shit. i thought loons were supposed to be at least interesting. you fail on that too. big yawn. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, go die by getting strangulated at the conclusion of your rape. Maybe you'll find getting turned out like a massive gay less boring (how banal by the way). I'm done with you turd. --Gewgtweg (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not an eye patient, I just haven't been following this thread. I do agree with Gewgtweg that you went too far there, let his bullshit speak for itself. Christopher (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It was just that you weren't paying attention because you are an intellectually lazy numbskull that had to post a pointless comment to make his unimpressive presence known. Deadbeat. --Gewgtweg (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on that, there's no need to say someone should get raped whilst stating it though. Christopher (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record and to prevent you from giving a false impression to those who haven't been following the exchange, let it be stated that the rape thing was a gruesome reply (whether comparatively more or less gruesome doesn't matter) to a gruesome insult. --Gewgtweg (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're willing to assert a universality to their unfoundedness, then sadly you're making a strong claim. I assert that no one has ever presented me a well-founded religious belief. That's an argument from personal incredulity, technically speaking, but faced against a bare assertion, I think it's the correct response. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 21:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

...I can see why the above discussion went south so fast. That being said — assuming the charitable interpretation required of the reader — I believe my claim holds up. Even if it doesn't, it'd be of little consequence — all it's saying is "it's true that not P". Its negation ("it's not true that it's true that not P") informally gets us nowhere close to "it's true that P". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

this is not an issue of the american left. it is an issue of human nature. if there is an american centric bias on such sites its because the user base is generally american and everything is going to be filtered through an american mentality. and as infuriating as it is for for non americans to be lectured by americans on things they have no direct experience of, id imagine its just as galling the other way round. it in no way justifies dismissing someones opinion if all you can say is 'well, they are not american, they wouldnt understand' and you cant or dont say say why, but hey, thats human nature. as for the overwatch thing, well. thats reddit for you. i rather glad that place has largely passed me by. if your looking for intellectual rigour you are looking in the wrong place. As for leftism, being american centric, thats just arse. on largley american sites maybe, but 'left' is different in the us the left in the uk, to the left in europe, to the left in asia, to the left in africa, to the left in south america. shit, its different in canada to the left in the us and it going to mean different things to to different people there too. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

oh, i forgot to mention, none of the above is unique to the left, american or otherwise. What passes for the right does exactly the same. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I know it's not an 100% unique issue to the left but freak being afraid of getting harassed if your opinion is 100% American leftisttm is scary. It's scary that such bias has built on these sites that leftism is framed as always righttm. Stalinist apologists are everywhere on these sites. Genocide by communists is denied, excused or "oh it has nothing to do with communism". The issue is well... more me; the weirdo who's a liberal socialist; being very upset that these American leftists seem more likely in my personal experience to deny genocide. ClickerClock (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"oh it has nothing to do with communism" Frankly, that argument isn't always wrong. Most "communist" states had an economy that wasn't communist on it's marxist definition (complete worker control of workplace). But the american left is far from being communist though, I don't know why you bring this up. Diacelium (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That argument is used by tankies to excuse themselves of caring about people who actually lived through communism. I know you aren't using it that way. But yes, "oh it has nothing to do with communism" is somewhat right and somewhat wrong. These regimes even if they weren't 100% communist were of course somewhat communism's fault. I am aware that many communist states like Vietnam, China are not really that communist even through they claim to be. They started with communist rebels, and resulted in those awful messes. ClickerClock (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not mean Rationalwiki, I was referring to Reddit and Tumblr and my sadness at the influence those sites have on the American far left. As the American far left is really scary and social media is making it worse. American liberals generally acknowledge genocide by communism.

My antifa jewish friend is sharing doxxes of nazis they got off tumblr. Oh my god, that's so dangerous. Who knows of the accuracy of those doxxes? Their antifa friend; I am not friends with her; dismissed "doxxing is wrong" as "liberal bullshit".

I do not like these people. I am scared of them.

Punching nazis -> doxxing nazis.

Punching nazis is much more better than doxxing them; not that i'm a fan of either.

Doxing & punching are both potential felonies. The consequences of the actions are more likely to determine which is worse in any particular circumstance. Bongolian (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tell your antifa friend to knock it off right now. Last thing we need is the Neo-Nazi side having a valid reason to complain of being victims. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But we do have valid reasons. All villains are heroes in their minds. 2d4chanfag (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, mario, what we need, right now, is for people to stop defending nazis like they're not a virulent ideology that has no positive sides. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 15:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@ClickerClock States like the USSR and pre-Xiaoping China had some very thick tomes of Marxist rhetoric and dialectic to justify their actions. To say they were not Marxist is just insanity. @Diacelium should know that these states only claimed to be in required transition periods to communism and silly standards like "they didn't have full worker control" are pointless. As for the modern incarnations, the justification is that countries like China have to use capitalism to develop the country in accordance with "stages of socialism." To everyone looking in, it's clearly their way of saying capitalism is the way to go without actually having to give up the ideology which justifies their absolute rule by proclaiming themselves the "vanguard of the people." The academics in the 20th century Soviet and Chinese schools had a much better understanding of Marxism that the modern reddit warriors, but the latter won't admit it because if you can't reinterpret your ideology's failure away as "not real X" than only the ideology itself is left to blame.

Which reminds me, reading those two gamerghazali threads you linked was...arduous. Seeing the spoiled American "lefists" dismiss the USSR as authoritarian and advocating destruction of the American civil infrastructure (infrastructure that many places would be happy to have) while at the same time demanding "community self defense groups" (what do they think the USSR called its crack police squads? "Fascist Enforcement Units?" LMAO) is difficult. The Taliban and similar Deobandi groups did a good job messing up my region, but they certainly knew how to deal with Marxists. Pinochet didn't do so bad either. Come to think of it, the East German Stasi and Soviet KGB had methods of dealing with spoiled anarchists as well. Almost makes one nostalgic. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(My personal opinion is that McCain is controlled opposition. Just like Rand Paul. They can't get reelected, otherwise. And it gives the appearance of a big tent.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

John McCain has actually been on the right side of a grand total of two issues: torture and campaign finance reform. ikanreed🐐Bleat at me 22:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Once upon a time he sort of seemed liberal compared to the senior senator from the state (Goldwater). Bongolian (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As I own the book (just around 50-60 pages) about that fuss, I've expanded the Hercolubus article -as that thing comes from Latin America most stuff is in Spanish-. I've not made up all that stuff.

EDIT. Long history short, Hercolubus will come in 1999, 2005, 2012, it's already here but spiritually, or a herald of it, Unicron, a sort of "Cosmic Cross", announced that (never mind constellations have been around for many thousands of years and are made up by men). --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've not found the book, just brochures (the Spanish wiki contains some information). EDIT. There's a PDF, but as the link was DMCAed I prefer not to put it here for fears this wiki could suffer the same) --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As an homage of sorts to the old National Lampoon "Foto Funnies" section (for those of you old enough to remember anyway), I've created a new page showcasing some of the funniest photo captions on our pages. Please add to it if you can remember some. There's only 4 there for a start; not so modestly, they're all mine. It's at Fun:Photo funniesBongolian (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

May was never a Brexiter. Did she commit hari-kari to kill it? nobs 06:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I admit I am unfamiliar with UK politics, so what "gigantic fuck-up" are you referring to? RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm American, but I've been following this, so I'll try to sum it up. May called a snap election on April 17, scheduled for June 8, in the hopes of expanding the Conservative Party's majority and shore up her position when it came to negotiating Brexit with the EU's officials, claiming that the UK needed "strong and stable" leadership. Initially, it looked as though the Tories were headed for a majority not seen since the Margaret Thatcher days, given that, while the Tories weren't necessarily popular, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an unelectable extremist. Then a series of gaffes, unpopular policy proposals, the Manchester and London attacks, and Corbyn softening his hard-left image over the next six weeks slowly but surely eroded the Tories' initial 20-point lead in the polls, to the point where the Tories losing their parliamentary majority was not out of the question... which wound up being precisely what happened. Right now, with all but five seats declared, the UK is looking at a 'hung parliament', meaning that no party has a majority; they will need partners from minor parties to enter a coalition. (On a side note, the Scottish National Party's support also cracked after their near-clean sweep of Scotland in the 2015 election, with the Tories, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats all picking up seats.)

Not to mention the possible implications that this general election will have on the United States midterms in 2018. --S.H. DeLong (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Theresa May, after having tried to exploit the recent terror attacks here in the UK for her own political gain, will now somewhat ironically be counting on the support of a defacto coalition with the Northern Irish DUP(Deomocratic Unionist Party), a party founded by the fire and brimstone spitting rabble rouser Ian Paisley, who have historical ties to terrorism and loyalist paramilitary terrorist groups like the Ulster Resistance. Unfortunately, being as the DUP are a bunch of bible thumping, anti-LGBT rights, anti-abortion, climate change denying, right wing, christian conservative types, she will almost certainly get their support on most issues. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 11:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The good news is in spite of all of that, they stand directly opposed to the Tories on one key issue: they favor Soft Brexit, specifically open borders and free flow of immigrants because they absolutely do not want The Troubles to start up again. Considering how the isles are now on a hard time limit to negotiate an exit deal with the EU, and that they need now literally every Tory and DUP MP to agree on everything in a proposed exit deal, this is A Big Problem for the Conservatives.

Also, from what I'm hearing, this Parliament makeup is so unstable it'll be a miracle if they make it even a year without calling in another election. --CoyoteSans (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the 'political scandals and trip-ups bingo form' - there were several feet in several mouths (usually belonging to the same body - and any politician going on to Woman's Hour (radio program) should expect a question on child care), but there has not been a 'hands in the till' or 'sex scandal' (sleeping with someone you are not officially linked to/indulging in non-standard practices etc) lately. 86.146.100.97 (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice way to fuck up things after having that majority even if I seriously doubt she'd have foreseen those terrorist attacks. --Panzerfaust (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Her campaign was astonishingly egocentric and arrogant, from her making herself the sole focus of the election (rather than her party or even the manifesto, really) to her refusing to do the debates, and even after the election refusing to acknowledge what had happened. I was never a fan of Theresa May but there was a time I figured she was the best available choice for the leadership of the Conservatives during their own internal contest, but god damn did she show some true colours during this whole thing. Mistake after mistake and it all appears to be 100% her fault for refusing to engage with the party at large and relying on a tiny group of advisers. Very bizarre, this whole thing. It WAS very amusing to see Labour slowly move from "well, we'll try our hardest" to "holy shit we might actually do this" as the campaign wore on, especially as the people who had previously thrown Corbyn under the bus in the most public way imaginable have slowly come crawling out of the woodwork once it dawned on them that maybe he wasn't the walking disaster they initially assumed. X Stickman (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. On a related note, UKIP has received its beating too. --Panzerfaust (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I learned a lot from following this; "north of the border" in England does not mean people and territory loyal to the Crown, as it does in the US. nobs 07:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the technicalities - the border is that between Scotland and England' (and is the one referred to in 'Here is the night train, Crossing the border...'), while 'the Watford Gap' marks a more informal one (and does not refer to the place near London, whatever some people think).

And there is a saying - whenever a politician denies certain things (they are going to resign, there will be no election/no new taxes etc) three times then it is true. 86.191.125.149 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)